date
stringlengths 10
10
| nb_tokens
int64 60
629k
| text_size
int64 234
1.02M
| content
stringlengths 234
1.02M
|
|---|---|---|---|
2016/07/17
| 1,640
| 7,075
|
<issue_start>username_0: I joined a research group of a faculty member in 201x, and worked with her for three years. During that time, I collaborated with a large hospital to perform research in the domain of medical informatics. I spoke about my research at two conferences; one was a talk, and the other was a poster presentation. My advisor asked me to write up the research in a paper around the second year, which I did. Around the third year, I decided to switch research groups, because of the relationship between me and my advisor going sour, and not having funding from her (I used to work part-time to fund my PhD research).
Once this happened, she withdrew her support from me publishing my paper and ordered that I give up my work to a fellow grad student. I told her, that my manuscript is in its Nth revision, and that I would like to take it to completion as first author. She was dismissive and didn’t offer any comments on my work. I told her, that, should I pass on my work, I would like to discuss authorship issues in advance, which she wasn’t ready to discuss. She ganged up my new advisor against me, and together they forced me to give up my code, results, paper drafts. I had to then leave the university without a degree.
Fast forward couple of years, I receive an email from a student in her lab (the student whom I had to hand over my work to), saying that they are publishing a paper, and have decided I am the fourth author. I read the paper and found out that it uses my experimental setup and design, data collection, and one of the ideas I had presented (the idea wasn’t the main crux of my paper, but I believe it was novel).
I want to
* Publish my original draft in ArXiv/BioArXiv, as first author.
* Request my advisor to cite my work in their publication.
Given how she behaved with me, I know that despite what I am asking for sounds fair, she is likely to object.
I am asking the community: Can I go ahead and ArXiv it without her permission? I could add her as an author, but not take her permission. Also, if you have any other ideas on how to deal with this situation please let me know.
(For the record, this was at a top-10 school in the US in an engineering department).<issue_comment>username_1: A paper must not be published without the (explicit or implicit) consent of all coauthors. This holds true for preprint servers as the arXiv just as for journals, etc.
Given the state of your relationship, there is no basis for assuming implicit consent of your former supervisor. Thus, submitting the paper to the arXiv with your former supervisor as coauthor without asking her is not an option.
You might be able to make a case that she should not be considered a coauthor. My understanding of the norms in your field is that the default assumption is that supervisors are coauthors - so your case would need to be strong enough to overcome that assumption.
This will depend on what your goals are, but in most cases, I would suspect that being some middle author on the paper they want to publish now might be the better outcome for you than having the original paper as single author on the arXiv, and a nasty publication ethics dispute.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I suggest you respond to the student and your former advisor roughly as follows:
* You do not consent to their proposal to publish the paper, as prepared, with you listed as 4th author. You believe that the substance of your contribution entitles you to first authorship, either on this paper, or on another paper to be published with citation priority.
* You understand that your decision to withhold consent blocks the publication of the current work.
* You would welcome an amicable resolution to the impasse that meets the needs of all parties.
* Your proposal is [\*\* what you said above \*\*].
* You welcome any alternative proposals from them for how to divide the work, in ways that are fair, and consistent with previous understandings and contributions.
* You propose that if you cannot between yourselves craft a mutually acceptable solution within a reasonable timeframe -- say, 30 days -- then the matter should be submitted to the University Ombudsperson with a request to help mediate the dispute.
\*\* [Edited:] If asked: You are open to alternative proposals for referees, but you want to keep the Ombudperson involved as the core arbitrator. (The reason: Other mediators might be more knowledgable about the professional and intellectual details of the case, and thus might be genuinely helpful. But they might be your ex-advisors allies, and/or craven cowards who just want problems to go away.)
I would cc everybody concerned on your letter, including the office of the University Ombudsperson. This last cc gives the Ombudsperson a 'heads up', and also puts a time-stamp on your letter with a (we hope) neutral third party. It also serves as a 'cease and desist' demand temporarily blocking any attempt to submit the paper for publication without your consent.
I am sorry you find yourself in this difficult situation.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: The advise you're getting from other answerers is fine -- though I have a few points to offer. In this analysis, I'm entirely leaving the circumstances of your separation from the school out of the scenario, as there are quite a few sides to stories like this, and chances are your department and faculty don't have the same view of the situation as you do. I'll leave my analysis to circumstances as they exist now.
I suggest approaching the head of your departmental graduate program for a discussion before raising this to a higher level, and then possibly to the chair.
I also point out that the "fast forward a couple of years" part now puts part of the burden on *you*. You left a potentially volatile situation simmer for quite some time (innocently), and what would have been fairly easy to deal with a few years ago is now somewhat difficult. If you dig in your heels, and your past adviser does the same, I point out you're standing in the way of another student's publication, and you have to decide if you really want to do this. Try to remember that this student has been working for years in good faith.
In light of this, you might think about other possible resolutions that you might find acceptable. I think your request to publish your original manuscript as a draft, and have that cited in the new paper, is quite reasonable, but it does place some work on your old adviser that she might find objectionable, thus she might not be interested. You might think about how you would respond, for example, if you received an offer of second authorship for the current paper.
I encourage you to think about this situation in terms of how important this publication is to your career path as it stands right now. If it isn't all that important, you might just want to say "make me a second author" and let it go, but if its key, digging in your heels might be the right thing to do. Don't let it turn into a revenge thing, though.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/17
| 299
| 1,397
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is the possibility for an international student to do a PhD in Monash Australia without a scholarship? Scholarship application to the university was unsuccessful.<issue_comment>username_1: There are certain funding schemes like Endeavour Australia that might be available to you, potentially. Perhaps depending on your topic, the relevant government department may have some additional scholarships available (either in your own country or in Australia). There may be various country specific programs available to you too, for example the Chinese Academic of Sciences (CAS) has a program. **Expect all of these options to be very competitive.**
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Some supervisors have their own funding. A candidate should usually have a first class and a few publications in order to get a general scholarship as per my knowledge. However, if your supervisor has some funding and he is willing to support you, you can have a chance. Otherwise you can increase your qualifications and apply in the next round. I know some students who could not get selected for Monash funding but have received scholarships from UNSW. Another option is getting permanent residency (PR visa). In that way government pays all your tuition fees. But you need to find a way to cover your living expenses (one option-you can work as a teaching associate).
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/17
| 3,111
| 12,433
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm doing my Masters right now and I am a new lab member (I've been there for just 4 months). A undergrad student didn't like it when I told her to follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents. So by e-mail she said she would tell our advisor lies about me and that he will believe in her because she's there for 2 years and he likes her, and I am a newbie.
I took that issue to the advisor, who read the e-mail that she sent and he was 100% supportive of me. However, they used to go the same church and he either pities her or really likes her, I don't know. Then he asked me to forgive her. But I can't, I can't even look her in the face anymore. I think she's evil and mean: she even told me I'm making my own grave and would spread lies about me to him. Now he knows the truth about her, but I think their personal relationship is blinding him. He should fire her! But he wants her there, so...
I don't want to change labs because I really like my PI. How should I deal with this situation?
She and I will have a one-to-one meeting next week, and my advisor told me she will apologize to me in that meeting, but I'm still worried she can sabotage my experiments in the future. We are not in the USA.
**UPDATE:** I had another conversation with my PI today, and he's dealing with this situation as "teenage fighting" - his words, not mine. He's being complacent about all of this and laughs about my worries and insecurities. He does not think that abusive and threating language from a student to another to be a big deal.
Religion plays a big role here I guess. He does not want to fire her in ANY hypothesis. Same religion; knows her parents and so on...
I really really like him, but I don't know if I do anymore. I think he's not providing a safe mental health environment for me...
He was too perfect to be true...
**UPDATE 2**
She lied, lied and lied again and it blew up on her face! Now, ALL\* lab members wanted her to go. The PI cut her funding, and she finally left our lab! Now we can live at peace, right? Not so fast...
\*She has a friend (just one - and also an undergrad like her) that is still here. And he's full of revenge! Another sociopathic liar. Sabotage is being a big issue here. All mice from a PhD student were found dead inside their cages. We cannot prove anything, but they had a fight two days earlier... Also, controlled drugs are now missing, and my PI is being once again complacent about it. I can denounce him to our correspondent DEA, but it could backfire somehow, I don't know. He still likes me, but I don't think I like him anymore. Actually, nobody in our lab trust him anymore.<issue_comment>username_1: Assuming US here. If she continues to fail to follow basic lab safety procedures, you may have to report her to the equivalent of your university's Environment Health and Safety department which oversees lab safety at many universities or OSHA. They may even have an anonymous tip line. This woman can probably guess that it was you if you try to make an anonymous report given your history, and you may even be fired by your boss if he really likes her more, wants to be vindictive, and you live in an "at will" employment state and lack an employment contract or union collective bargaining agreement if you are unionized.
I think that these things are unlikely, but your personal and labmates' health and safety should probably come before your job and their reaction to it. Depending on your university regulations and state labor laws, you may not be able to be fired for reporting a violation of safety regulations, but if you are in an at-will state, you can be fired for wearing the wrong color shoes or cutting your hair too short, so a smart employer will avoid saying anything that could be conceived of as dismissing you for reporting a safety violation. Keep notes after meetings of what was discussed and email them back to your PI as a record to confirm that you both agree on what was said and what you agreed to do.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Note: You will deal with a LOT more evil and mean people in your life. So, that will not impact my comments.
**Second Chance:**
Talk to the PI, about giving the student a second chance, and get confirmation from the PI that if they do it again - and jeopardize anyone's safety, including their own - throw them out. Ask the PI what to do if you are concerned with safety.
Likely, give them a chance. Give the student another warning "the last warning".
**If you want to pursue it before the second chance:**
You will likely anger the PI. But.
What is #1? Safety.
When asking someone to "follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents", it is a matter of safety. Having someone jeopardize their own safety or the safety of others is not acceptable.
If this were something like asking a student to "shutdown windows before turning off the lab PC", and they don't, then ignore it, and get on with life.
"follow biosafety rules when handling dangerous chemical reagents" is likely an OSHA policy (if you are in the US), university policy, law, and is not something that can be disregarded.
Go to the Dean and/or safety person. There is likely some safety officer (not like police, but like chemical/biological safety).
**Confrontation with the student:**
Any confrontation with the student must be done in public with neutral witnesses, and preferably video and audit if permissible. The email is a threat to slander you. That is likely against school conduct policy.
**Decision time:**
Now, it is up to you whether there really is enough to pursue, or if there is a small enough time that you can just let it go, and get on with your life.
If you don't let it go, then it is possible that **even by winning, you will lose**. You may have to deal with this for more semesters, and face other retaliation by the student or the PI.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **See a lawyer.** Find out what your rights and responsibilities are in this matter. A good lawyer will tell you what to say and do, what not to say and do, and what actions could provoke the other parties to furnish you with more evidence. A lawyer will also tell you what to record, and how to record it. (I am not a lawyer and I am an American so this post may be more suitable for similarly situated Americans than for you.)
There are some very serious issues here, most of which work in your favor.Bottom line, they can fire you from the lab, but only at the risk of liabilities that most rational people would not choose to incur.
1. **Slander.** If the undergraduate slanders you, and you lose your job, you can sue the party for lost wages, as well as punitive damages. This may be true even if the slander was not what cost you your job, only that it "possibly" did.
2. **Safety.** A safety violation is a serious matter. If you can document this woman's violation of safety, you have a very strong case. That fact that she threatened you about this *compounds* the offense, making it a *multiple* of a simple" safety violation. That's because it is "willful," not an oversight.
3. **Employment**. Termination "without cause" is acceptable in many parts of the United States, and the rest of the world. But "wrongful termination" is not. If you are terminated, there will be a strong presumption that it was "wrongful."
One more thing, the higher this goes, the better for you. A lab instructor may fire you (and try to cover up his misdeeds). A department would not take these issues so lightly, and the university less so. And if you need to get this out of the university and to your country's health and safety or labor department, so much the better for you.
So "lawyer up" and prepare for a fight that you should be able to win. An American army captain once told his troops, "Don't fire the first shot. But if they want a war, let it begin right here." He was talking about the American Revolution, which his side won.
Maybe this thing will "go away." Maybe it won't. But in the latter case, you should position yourself to get the maximum compensation possible if they hurt you first.
I refer you to username_4' excellent post that gives you rather *opposite* advice, so that you have a "pro" and "con" to choose from, based on your situation, which you know better than either of us.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: She has been mean to you, not the PI. He clearly signals that he likes you and your work. You say that he also realises she has an immature attitude. I think that you are in a good position here, unless you mess it up.
The superviser clearly sees the situation and - in veiled form - tells you to be the mature part of the interaction. When he tells you to forgive her, that's very clearly what he means. In short, at this stage, *you* have to show maturity. Clearly, you need to work on that (I quote your response: "Hahaha...." - SE is not the place for such formulations).
You should not worry too much to prove that she lies about you, as the superviser made very clear that he will not pay heed to her stories about you (why otherwise would he have emphasised that you are one of the brightest students he had?). He has sent you a clear message of confidence.
Whether he likes her or not, you do not know, but it seems very clear, even through your report, that he takes pity on her. He will not fire her; it is not your job to make him do so. He also will not remove you, unless you decide to go. He seems a very reasonable person.
As for her using threatening language, you have a number of options: when she does that, you ignore it. Or else, you find a reason for yourself to go away, without responding, to some made-up excuse (for yourself), such as the bathroom. Or else, you respond: "This is not the place for threatening language. Please refrain from such language, it is inappropriate to talk like that to your colleagues." - or something along those lines. In a cool, calm, and collected manner. If she indeed has the maturity of a 12-year old, she may not absorb the words, but she will absorb the tone.
She presses the buttons where she sees an effect in. If you signal to her that you have no business with her, and that you are unaffected by her threats, you will become an uninteresting target.
Forget about winning/losing. You just do not have to play her game, you decide which games you play, and which ones you don't.
Bottom line: stay away from her; relax, the PI trusts you; and follow your maturity level and do not let yourself be dragged down to hers. She is not the one to set the agenda, your PI is, and he unambiguously signalled his trust in you. When he sets the meeting, if she apologises, graciously accept the apology (even if you do not believe in it, take it at face value), but still stay away. Her safety procedures are not your business anymore - you have made your case.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_5: Document as much as you can. If possible, you may want to have a neutral but trusted third person in attendance at your meeting with her.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: Unfortunately the World is full of stupid, ignorant, selfish, hateful, jealous, etc. etc. etc. people and you have to find a way to deal with that. There is no way you can get rid of all the nasty people so that you can live and work in peace with only perfect people. What works better is to outsmart these usually quite stupid people. If she wants to tell lies about you, then you can tell a lot of lies about yourself to her that can easily be verified to not be correct. E.g. you can tell that you failed most of your exams. That's not true, your supervisor can easily verify that it is not true, but she can't. So, she'll fall in a trap set by you the moment she discloses such things to your supervisor.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_7: I think the best approach is to follow *username_4*'s advice but also make clear to the advisor that you will not compromise on safety of the people in the lab and will be morally obligated to report the safety violation should it be continued (as per *username_1*'s answer). At the same time make it clear that you do not wish to get the other student into unnecessary trouble so you just want safety protocols to be followed from now on.
In short, aim to fix and forgive.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/18
| 617
| 2,566
|
<issue_start>username_0: A student turned in a bunch of homework assignments, poorly organized and many not labeled. One of them was on a topic for several weeks from now. The student turned in a short essay for the assignment, which I have not given.
Notes:
Most of the course material was prepared by someone else and is normally used by several of us adjuncts.
I've taught this course prior.
English is not the student's primary language (interesting since the essays turned in are in very good English...).
Since I haven't given the assignment, is it plagiarism? (What was turned in is straight up a copy of an internet source.)
Do I report them to the Chair/Dean for plagiarism?<issue_comment>username_1: This is clear cut plagiarism. And not only is it plagiarism, it is also very poorly conducted plagiarism, which is a bit worse in my book, since it indicates that the student does not even takes studying seriously enough to read through the assignments and understand what he/she is plagiarizing.
Your university surely has guidelines. If you don't know the guidelines, you can ask the person responsible for undergraduate education at your institution, which will probably also be the person you should report to.
And let me just add one final thing: You don't do the student any favors by not reporting. Plagiarism exploits the mutual trust there always needs to be when teaching, and this is harmful for university education as such. Plagiarism and cheating should therefore always have consequences.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: No. The plagiarism part is irrelevant here. You report them for **cheating** on their homework by copying it from the internet.
And after that, you seriously consider changing your assignments from year to year, even if slightly, to avoid this problem.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Given the recent sentiment about retention from many administrators, just make sure you have a very solid case.
It is cheating, and should be treated as such. If the school/university/department has a policy, follow it. If not, propose one. Mine goes like this:
1. The first instance of cheating or plagiarism receives a zero on the assignment
2. After being warned, the second instance is a failing grade for the course
While the first instance may or may not be reported to the administration, the second one will. This may lead to disciplinary action up to dismissal from the University.
As an adjunct, you have to be very careful, ask for the chair's opinion or at least a TT colleague.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/18
| 1,516
| 5,841
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been peer reviewing scholarly manuscripts for more than 10 years, and I am always concerned that the quality of my reviews might be impacted by the fact that my name is made public to authors or other people, instead of the typical scenario in which authors are blinded to the reviewers' identity. This is becoming more and more commonplace in the open access era.
For instance, some journals let authors but not readers know the name of the reviewers. One example is the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Specifically, the [BMJ](http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/peer-review-process) website clearly states:
"*For research papers, The BMJ has fully open peer review. This means that every accepted research paper submitted from September 2014 onwards will have its prepublication history posted alongside it on thebmj.com. This prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the study protocol, the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers’ signed comments, and the authors’ responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors*."
A similar approach, in which the peer reviewer's identity can be disclosed to authors on a voluntary basis, is followed by journals such as [PLOS ONE](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process) ("*Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript? Reviewers’ identities are anonymous unless a reviewer indicates otherwise*"). Other journals, instead let everybody, even readers, know their identity (e.g. [World Journal of Meta-Analysis](http://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v3/i5/215.htm)).
There is some, albeit limited, research on this (e.g. [<NAME> et al, BMJ 1999](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9872878) and [DeCoursey, Nature 2006](http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature04991.html)).
I favor the approach followed by the Baishideng Publishing Group (fully open model), but I am wondering what is the opinion and insight of the ACADEMIA community.<issue_comment>username_1: I have a similar history of reviewing papers at around eight years, though in the fields of engineering and robotics. Between the official reviews for journals or conferences (which are almost all single blind and in rare cases double blind) and informal reviews for colleagues, I would say I differ only in level of tactfulness.
The stakes in the official review process, however, are higher and I would not agree to review if my name was to be released. I’ve rejected papers based on lack of contribution (to the extent where there were missing citations of seminal papers or even their own previous work to make the current paper look more significant) as well as lack of fundamental understanding of the involved system or experimental processes. These types of issues are not things that can be easily fixed and the review becomes more of a statement of ‘start over’ with the associated large investment of time, money, and/or resources.
Peer review requires an already rather generous donation of time by those who participate. In an open peer review there is additionally a very real fear of retribution, which only the well-established can easily ignore. My personal experience follows the results of the previously mentioned van Rooyen et al. – review quality in an open process stays approximately the same, but the number of willing reviewers decreases, potentially drastically. The open review process certainly has some value, but I don’t consider it to be widely practically implementable with the current reviewer arrangement.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Personally, I've reviewed for a number of journals that have let the authors know my name, or publish the name of the peer reviewers alongside the manuscript and it hasn't much changed my style. Perhaps it's because I assume you could figure my name out if you tried, or because I'm trying the "Do onto others..." approach to peer review, but there's really nothing I'd have to moderate if someone knew my name.
Which means the risk is the vindictiveness of the authors. What *would* likely happen is I would be somewhat pickier about who I was willing to review papers for.
I also rather like the journals going in the other direction and doing double-blind peer review.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: One of the best summaries of this topic I know is from [<NAME>](https://thepoliticalmethodologist.com/2015/12/08/peering-at-open-peer-review/amp/). It mentions all relevant papers I came across trying to answer this question and [my question about open peer review as seen from the perpective of authors](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/83870/why-and-how-commonly-are-scientists-concerned-about-open-peer-review).
Reading all these papers took me to the conclusion that signed reviews make a difference but that this is not perceived as inevitable negative.
[<NAME>](https://thepoliticalmethodologist.com/2015/12/08/peering-at-open-peer-review/amp/) summarizes the studies as follows:
>
> As noted by a number of articles on the topic, OPR creates incentives for referees to write insightful reports, or at least it has no adverse impact over the quality of reviews (DeCoursey 2006; Godlee 2002; Groves 2010; Pöschl 2012; Shanahan and Olsen 2014). In a study that used randomized trials to assess the effect of OPR in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Walsh et al. (2000) show that “signed reviews were of higher quality, were more courteous and took longer to complete than unsigned reviews.”
>
>
>
**To clarify the quote:** OPR means Open Peer Review and [D<NAME>ire](https://thepoliticalmethodologist.com/2015/12/08/peering-at-open-peer-review/amp/) uses "a narrow definition of OPR – only asking referees to sign their report".
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/18
| 398
| 1,527
|
<issue_start>username_0: While helping a friend with a research assignment (basically find some studies on a topic, compare them, and then evaluate the work as a whole), I noticed that the professor had provided a sample paper.
They had one paragraph for every study, and they were all in the same exact format. For example:
>
> [Authors] conducted a [type of study] to investigate [phenomena]. The
> study was conducted at [institution] and involved [N] [types of
> people]. The strengths of this study were [...] etc.
>
>
>
Is it plagiarism to copy this exact format? Or is the structure of paragraphs not something to worry about?<issue_comment>username_1: I am not sure of the question exactly, but there are "standards" for writing academic papers.
This is the standard way of reporting studies, but use the primary source rather than the secondary source.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: It's not "plagiarism" because you are copying a standard format. That is known as [scenes a faire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_faire) in fiction, but can apply to Academia. This is not only allowed, but encouraged, because you are conforming to a "formula."
You should be worried if you were copying an unusual or original format. That's not the case here.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Why not have an introductory paragraph that says the format of the summaries is taken from the example paper.
This intro could also say what papers where chosen and why.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/18
| 1,117
| 4,952
|
<issue_start>username_0: After a lengthy review process, I finally published my first paper. Unfortunately, upon seeing it in print, I was immediately dismayed.
During the proofing process, formatting errors appeared on the table, presumably as a result of the conversion to the journal's table template. The table in question was supposed to have three 'sub-headings' but was formatted such that two sub-headings appeared different from the other two (bold vs framed between two horizontal lines and capitalized). Amongst other corrections, I brought this up during the proofing process by highlighting that the three sub-headings were formatted differently and to correct it so they were all stylized in the same way. When I was notified of my article being published online, however, I found that the changes to the table were ignored. I sent an email asking what could be done and was informed that although they understood I had certain corrections, that no changes could be made now it was online and instead was offered to publish a corrigendum.
Since these changes are aesthetic and not related to the content, a corrigendum (at least to my understanding) would not change anything to the appearance of the figure as corrigenda are published as a separate note, making a corrigendum not really worth it. At the same time, I'm frustrated that after having put so much time into proofreading the article to ensure no mistakes appeared, that one appeared anyway that had nothing to do with me. I wish I could say it's a minor aesthetic point that only I would notice, but after sending out my article to colleagues and friends I received numerous comments about this particular formatting error.
I suppose I have two questions. First, how cut and dry is the rule of not being able to correct articles once they are published? Or is it simply indicative of a lack of willingness or goodwill on the publisher's part that could, perhaps with some more insistence on my part, give way? And if there really is nothing that can be done, is it worth publishing a corrigendum?
Thanks for any insight you can offer.
EDIT: Looking everything over for the n-th time, I now see a couple other errors (eg. inconsistent capitalization in the legends). The thing is these mistakes were not present in the proofing stage (I have the proof file as proof); they were tacked on after the fact, when it was too late to do anything about it. Is this something I should contact the editor-in-chief about?
EDIT 2: Thanks to all for the feedback and suggestions. I ended up contacting the journal manager, informing her that I would not be requesting a corrigendum but that I would be placing a complaint to the editor-in-chief. I was contacted the next day and informed they would fix all the errors in the article.
EDIT 3: So all the original errors were fixed, however I noticed yet another error was introduced that was absent in the previous version. I'm giving up my crusade for now, and will simply not publish in this journal in the future. Thanks again for all the advice.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> How cut and dry is the rule of not being able to correct articles once they are published?
>
>
>
While nearly all journals are inclined not to make any changes to the content after publication, they do encourage the use of corrigendum or errata (see [AMS policy](http://www.ams.org/publications/journals/help/jourhtml-changes)). However, some publishers allow minor changes to formatting with the version of the old publication archived. This can be acceptable as long as the change does not affect the result or conclusion in any way. In your case its just minor formatting changes and it seems fine in this case.
There are some bureaucratic publishers (such as the one you've encountered) who disallow this feature. This would be especially in the case where print versions are involved to preserve the integrity of the article. Or, just to save the time and effort involved in the process. Hence, it is up to the author to make sure that formatting errors are minimized before making the final camera-ready copy of the manuscript before publication.
>
> Is it worth publishing a corrigendum?
>
>
>
In your case, no. Corrigendum is useful for minor content changes, error and grammatical corrections but I haven't yet come across one for defining formatting errors in tables and uniformity in capitalization.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The publisher is being dishonest when they tell you that nothing can be done now that the paper has appeared online.
The problem is that they failed to make the changes you asked for. This means that the fault is on their end, not yours. They should be responsible for correcting the paper according to your recommendations, and, if necessary, issue a publisher's note indicating that the changes were made as a result of failing to address your corrections.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2016/07/18
| 1,207
| 4,890
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I refereed a paper in pure mathematics. Although I recommended a "major revision", I was quite impressed with the paper, and indeed I would like to: (1) describe his results in a grant proposal I am writing, and (2) eventually apply the author's techniques in my own work.
The author has not yet made his paper publicly available (e.g. on the arXiv or on his personal website). Ethically speaking, may I now freely refer to his paper in my proposal, and later in my work? Or am I bound to wait until the paper is published or until the author has otherwise made it available to the public?
I e-mailed him recently, let him know that I was a referee for his paper, and asked his permission to do this. If he writes back to offer (or deny) me permission, then that settles the issue. But what if I do not hear back?<issue_comment>username_1: No. It's a standard expectation that you'll keep confidential anything in the papers you referee. Once the paper is published (or even made available online as a preprint) then you'd be free to refer to what has been made public.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: *Ethically*, I would say until the author endorses public discussion of his work (either by express permission, or the author himself talking about his work in public) don't discuss it. In math, it's common to post public preprints when you're ready to publicly announce your work, so not doing it could be a sign that that the author doesn't want this work public knowledge until after being refereed, and possibly having appeared. Possible reasons for such attitudes are: you don't want your work public until someone else checks it, or you are working on follow-up work and you don't want anyone to scoop you.
(The ethics here being to respect the author's wishes about their work. In any case, you don't want a reputation for not respecting other peoples' privacy. You might burn some bridges and people will be less willing to trust you with sensitive things.)
Note: I probably would not have emailed the author, who may or may not mind (and the editor might also mind), but it seems that is already done.
**Edit:** I agree with username_1 that another issue is the violation of (in math, usually tacit) understanding that refereed papers are to be treated with a measure of confidentiality. I intended to mention this also, but it was late and I must have edited it out.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: journal submissions are generally confidential. The blindness of the referee is generally to protect the referee so you are entitled to waive it if you wish.
So you can't use results in the paper until it's placed in the public domain by the author or published or you get his permission.
I suspect the author doesn't want to be scooped.
One approach might be to emphasize to the editor the topicality of the work and ask that the paper's handling be expedited.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: As a supplement to other useful answers and comments: as I've said a number of times on these sites, the apparently immediate idea of open-ness has some issues, the idea of direct communication with authors of submissions one is refereeing has issues, and the idea that there is no impulse to game the system is pathologically naive. Think of retaliation on whistle-blowers, retaliation on sexual harassment complainants, and so on. My point is that it is injudicious to operate as though human beings would be dispassionate and rational... even while, or perhaps "ironically while"... we're talking about pseudo-rational issues such as scholarly merit.
When I referee papers (ok, math is my biz), I try to be positive, especially for junior people who need to get tenure ... or a job, but I do often also suggest substantive changes, and point out substantive infelicities. By this point in my life, maybe I'd be willing to bear a sort of public flak about my critiques/recommendations/edits, but I'd really rather not. So, if a publishing entity cannot commit to my anonymity as reviewer/referee/critic, I'd probably demur.
Lest people think I'm just being a baby, a coward, etc., I'd note that a few years ago I tried to help some good, young people edit their paper so that it was ... um... not literally fallacious. One of those situations where no one doubts the conclusion, but, ... srsly... the proofs should be genuine. ("Or is it just me?!?" ...) The authors did not understand the issue, got angry, etc. Now, while I am disappointed that they did not take my advice, or understand it, ... especially given that misunderstanding, I would not want to be known as the person who (to their minds) "did not understand their paper, and was a b\*tch"...
That is, I don't mind giving other people the option to misunderstand what I'm saying, but I'd prefer to be out of the "sights" of their unhappiness.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/18
| 301
| 1,343
|
<issue_start>username_0: In computer science, many conferences have a rebuttal phase, where reviewers ask questions to the authors and then, basing on the answers, decide wether to accept or reject the paper. However this seems to be ambiguous on what I can say to the reviewers.
For example, in a paper I submitted to a conference, reviewers lament the absence of certain experiments, that, in my opinion I could easily add to the paper.
Is it ok to state that I can actually add those experiments, if the paper goes to the next phase, or is not this what a rebuttal phase is designed for?<issue_comment>username_1: This has probably been resolved already, but if it were in fact "easy" to add those experiments, then I would do so, and describe that fact to the reviewers.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: Rebuttal phases offer authors an opportunity to swing the opinion of reviewers. To swing the opinion of a reviewer, authors must present convincing evidence. If a reviewer wants more experiments, then it is (IMO) reasonable for authors to promise them. However, that won't swing the reviewer's opinion. To swing their opinion, authors need to convince reviewers that the additional experiments can be added before the camera-ready deadline. That is, authors must show that these experiments can be conducted quickly.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/19
| 276
| 1,295
|
<issue_start>username_0: Recently I have communicated a manuscript to Springer journal. In editorial system I was required to furnish funding information. If the funding information is available then does that mean that I have to publish my work through open access by paying fee from funds that have been sanctioned to me?
Although the journal is not open access journal but I am afraid if they ask for article processing fee after acceptance of manuscript. My sanctioned funds does not cover article processing charges<issue_comment>username_1: Funding information is often required even when a journal has no open source option to it. The source of funding is a major potential conflict of interest, and as such is a key piece of information in evaluating a paper.
That being said, it may also be used to determine things like whether or not they should give a break on open access fees, whether it needs to be deposited in Pubmed Central, etc.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: In addition to username_1's answer, there is another reason to demand funding information: to ensure that any possible conflicts of interest in the research that arise because of funding are disclosed. This is particularly an issue in medical research, where many studies are funded by industry.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/19
| 2,089
| 9,261
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a paper that is currently in review but that has been available via bioRxiv for a while. While my paper was in review, a paper was published elsewhere which essentially scoops my paper. I am wondering how this could affect my paper in review seeing as my results were available earlier.
To clarify, I guess my question is about priority. We uploaded the manuscript because we were scared of being scooped. We thought that by uploading the manuscript, it would make it impossible for another group to publish the same results. The question is twofold:
>
> Is it ethical that the other group published the same results whilst they were aware of the preprint? Secondly, would a journal take preprint priority into account when assessing a manuscript which has been scooped by another paper?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: Do you know that they were aware of the preprint? Scoops are bound to be common if many groups are working on the same problem or starting to flesh out a new area with lots of low-hanging fruit. If they were aware of your preprint, and you can prove it, they should have cited your preprint at the very least, and you might get them to publish an errata with the citation. But, if they didn't know about it, they got there first, and you'll just have to accept that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say, let the review of your paper go forward. If it is rejected because of the other paper, well that's what happens sometimes. But maybe it will be accepted anyway. The decision is up to the journal editor. I don't know what this paper is about, but in some fields, replication of results is sometimes useful.
If your paper is published, maybe you can add a note to it about the other paper, and saying they were independent. Maybe even casually mention the date your preprint was on-line.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **This answer is under context that the OP's preprint was submitted primarily by him as a game piece in a competition with another group.**.
>
> We uploaded the manuscript because we were scared of being scooped. We thought that by uploading the manuscript, it would make it impossible for another group to publish the same results.
>
>
>
This answer uses the context that two or more groups were working on similar measurements in competition, simultaneously and independently; likely there was awareness of each other as *the* competition for this result; and that the only effect on group B (if they even saw the preprint) is 'lighting a fire' under someone to finish the write up the results to try to either beat a submission date to publication (just in case the OP's preprint was prematurely posted to try to bluff the competition) or to try to show how close both groups were in time and get an 'also ran' credit. Notice that there was no mention of which group thought of these experiments first, or giving credit for the ideas.
**Yes, It is ethical for group B to submit a paper for work done independently even knowing that there is a 'preprint' floating around from group A who appear completing their independent results simultaneously. Most of the fixup would occur after one or the other published articles appear.**
Giving everyone in this particular situation the benefit of doubt; a solid assumption is that each group expects the other to submit any solid results for publication. (and that both would prefer the published articles to be citation-of-record).
It might be nice to cite a preprint *in this case* as a placeholder. But, the real issue occurs when the first paper gets 'in print' and the still-waiting group can compare submission dates. Will group A or group B do their duty? *(As it turns out from additional comments in the OP's post, group B submitted their work before the OP's preprint appeared.. **The OP should add a citation to group B in his in-review paper.**).*
To expect the preprint to be treated as the priority game changer between the two groups in this very artificial situation is not fair. It was posted as a game-piece in the race to establish priority between neck-and-neck groups doing the same experiment. Either group here could have abused a preprint posting (e.g., putting something out that is not 'ready' or full of minor or major errors to establish claims like a patent troll) and then fixing it up in a later version.
If we are using traditions still mostly in play, when it is a 'race' for priority, what will count to the community in establishing priority is **when was the paper submitted to the journal**. (If someone tries to publish to early, and their work is not ready, there is chance it will get rejected, giving some checks and balances)
Finally -**Journals will care about the submission date, not a preprint posting date.** OP's paper is still in review, with group B's paper appearing first. It is usually is not a reason to reject group A's paper. Group B's paper had not appeared when the referees started reviewing. Traditionally, what would happen when the dust settles is that group A and/or group B's paper would add citation or corrigendum.
Pretty much for everyone else, if two papers with similar important results appear about the same time, they both will be cited more or less equally and/or together.
The moral being, (in this case) that if one is worried about establishing priority in a race and trying all possible **gambits**, the (ready to publish) paper should be submitted for publication immediately after being posted on preprint server. Then it has what protections are currently possible under traditional model and any newly evolving models.
\*I likely will get negative comments saying that I imply to 'ignore at will citing or acknowledging unpublished (but reliable) preprints'. (No, I am not). But this case seems to be about independent, simultaneous competition where the preprint was used by group A to either 1) *pretend* they had already had version ready to be submitted for publication to psych out competitors from submitting their own, or 2) indicate to community that version was just submitted for publication and anyone who thereafter submitted would not have the priority when the dust settled.\*
In clarification - in later comments to the original posted questions, here is timeline deduced after my original answer was created.
1. Group A (the OP) and group B at conference in their subfield.
2. OP or member of group A shows their results in their presentation. *From OP's comments, it is pretty clear that any 'published' conference abstracts available before or after conference do not present any details of results (which usually means that presentations standard may be work-in-progress - no one in audience is going to complain or ask for a 'talk' retraction later if results or understanding evolves between talk and a final publication.*
3. Group B submitted their work for publication without sending a preprint to the OP (or posting a preprint on public server).
4. OP submits a preprint a few weeks or month later. They make Group B aware of the preprint.
5. OP submits preprint for publication (time delay between preprint and submission unknown)
6. Group B's previously submitted paper appears in print.
7. OP becomes aware of Group B's paper .
8. OP asks question to stack exchange (because no matter what, it is a very disappointing to feel as if you were scooped)
11. On bright side, We have important results corroborated within a short time from two independent groups. Others in the field will cite both with with confidence.
**EDITS 1**
1) Numerous edits/rearrangements to articulate reasoning related to original posting which is neglectful of the preprint rights in this **particular** case focusing on group B actions. (I'd appreciate hints on how to clarify, as the negative comments are focused on preprints being neglected as a general class of published goodness )
2) Added the timeline from OPs additional comments. Basically group B never saw preprint before submitting their own paper because it did not exist then.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: This might depend on field, but it is not uncommon for two papers to appear on the same thing at pretty much the same time, and both might reasonably be published. In my experience, if a preprint appears on something someone else is writing, they will post theirs as soon as possible, to make it (reasonably) clear that their work is independent (preprints are standard in my field, although some papers are published without preprints being available).
If the paper appeared while yours was under review, and no preprint was available before (showing, for example, that they actually got the result two years before you), it is clear to the journal you submitted to that your work is independent. My expectation would be for yours to be treated as it would have been, but then but if accepted you would include a sentence pointing out that the other work was independent (and published while yours was under review, maybe).
If your paper is rejected by the journal you submitted to, you may find it hard to get it published elsewhere, if the time-lag between the two papers becomes too large.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/19
| 2,270
| 9,944
|
<issue_start>username_0: A friend asked me to post this.
I am an **A** grade undergraduate student who participated in many competitions and won many trophies for the Uni.
So basically, during a final exam, a proctor felt that there is something under my hand. So I simply gave him the cheat sheet. He flagged the incident. The dean came immediately to double check if it was really mine. I simply said yes
Later on, I was called to a disciplinary committee meeting where I told the whole truth..
The committee president stated that the answer of that question was wrong (which I assume is an enough proof that I didn't cheat from that sheet).
Unfortunately, the decision was already made to follow the rules and reject my submitted paper.
**The situation**:
1. I didn't cheat from that sheet
2. I gave it to the professor though he saw nothing
3. I told the full truth from the beginning to the end
4. I hate everyone now, feeling that I shouldn't be honest in the first place
5. I am totally discouraged
**My question is**:
How can I pass that incident and continue dealing with all professors normally?
especially that I was dealt so hard after me being so productive generally and also very honest with all of them in this specific case?!
Were they right in their decision?
**PS**:
1. This is the first time to be caught (and definitely the last one)
2. I spoke with the president and -despite the fact that he was shocked- he agreed on the committee decision<issue_comment>username_1: Do you know that they were aware of the preprint? Scoops are bound to be common if many groups are working on the same problem or starting to flesh out a new area with lots of low-hanging fruit. If they were aware of your preprint, and you can prove it, they should have cited your preprint at the very least, and you might get them to publish an errata with the citation. But, if they didn't know about it, they got there first, and you'll just have to accept that.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I would say, let the review of your paper go forward. If it is rejected because of the other paper, well that's what happens sometimes. But maybe it will be accepted anyway. The decision is up to the journal editor. I don't know what this paper is about, but in some fields, replication of results is sometimes useful.
If your paper is published, maybe you can add a note to it about the other paper, and saying they were independent. Maybe even casually mention the date your preprint was on-line.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: **This answer is under context that the OP's preprint was submitted primarily by him as a game piece in a competition with another group.**.
>
> We uploaded the manuscript because we were scared of being scooped. We thought that by uploading the manuscript, it would make it impossible for another group to publish the same results.
>
>
>
This answer uses the context that two or more groups were working on similar measurements in competition, simultaneously and independently; likely there was awareness of each other as *the* competition for this result; and that the only effect on group B (if they even saw the preprint) is 'lighting a fire' under someone to finish the write up the results to try to either beat a submission date to publication (just in case the OP's preprint was prematurely posted to try to bluff the competition) or to try to show how close both groups were in time and get an 'also ran' credit. Notice that there was no mention of which group thought of these experiments first, or giving credit for the ideas.
**Yes, It is ethical for group B to submit a paper for work done independently even knowing that there is a 'preprint' floating around from group A who appear completing their independent results simultaneously. Most of the fixup would occur after one or the other published articles appear.**
Giving everyone in this particular situation the benefit of doubt; a solid assumption is that each group expects the other to submit any solid results for publication. (and that both would prefer the published articles to be citation-of-record).
It might be nice to cite a preprint *in this case* as a placeholder. But, the real issue occurs when the first paper gets 'in print' and the still-waiting group can compare submission dates. Will group A or group B do their duty? *(As it turns out from additional comments in the OP's post, group B submitted their work before the OP's preprint appeared.. **The OP should add a citation to group B in his in-review paper.**).*
To expect the preprint to be treated as the priority game changer between the two groups in this very artificial situation is not fair. It was posted as a game-piece in the race to establish priority between neck-and-neck groups doing the same experiment. Either group here could have abused a preprint posting (e.g., putting something out that is not 'ready' or full of minor or major errors to establish claims like a patent troll) and then fixing it up in a later version.
If we are using traditions still mostly in play, when it is a 'race' for priority, what will count to the community in establishing priority is **when was the paper submitted to the journal**. (If someone tries to publish to early, and their work is not ready, there is chance it will get rejected, giving some checks and balances)
Finally -**Journals will care about the submission date, not a preprint posting date.** OP's paper is still in review, with group B's paper appearing first. It is usually is not a reason to reject group A's paper. Group B's paper had not appeared when the referees started reviewing. Traditionally, what would happen when the dust settles is that group A and/or group B's paper would add citation or corrigendum.
Pretty much for everyone else, if two papers with similar important results appear about the same time, they both will be cited more or less equally and/or together.
The moral being, (in this case) that if one is worried about establishing priority in a race and trying all possible **gambits**, the (ready to publish) paper should be submitted for publication immediately after being posted on preprint server. Then it has what protections are currently possible under traditional model and any newly evolving models.
\*I likely will get negative comments saying that I imply to 'ignore at will citing or acknowledging unpublished (but reliable) preprints'. (No, I am not). But this case seems to be about independent, simultaneous competition where the preprint was used by group A to either 1) *pretend* they had already had version ready to be submitted for publication to psych out competitors from submitting their own, or 2) indicate to community that version was just submitted for publication and anyone who thereafter submitted would not have the priority when the dust settled.\*
In clarification - in later comments to the original posted questions, here is timeline deduced after my original answer was created.
1. Group A (the OP) and group B at conference in their subfield.
2. OP or member of group A shows their results in their presentation. *From OP's comments, it is pretty clear that any 'published' conference abstracts available before or after conference do not present any details of results (which usually means that presentations standard may be work-in-progress - no one in audience is going to complain or ask for a 'talk' retraction later if results or understanding evolves between talk and a final publication.*
3. Group B submitted their work for publication without sending a preprint to the OP (or posting a preprint on public server).
4. OP submits a preprint a few weeks or month later. They make Group B aware of the preprint.
5. OP submits preprint for publication (time delay between preprint and submission unknown)
6. Group B's previously submitted paper appears in print.
7. OP becomes aware of Group B's paper .
8. OP asks question to stack exchange (because no matter what, it is a very disappointing to feel as if you were scooped)
11. On bright side, We have important results corroborated within a short time from two independent groups. Others in the field will cite both with with confidence.
**EDITS 1**
1) Numerous edits/rearrangements to articulate reasoning related to original posting which is neglectful of the preprint rights in this **particular** case focusing on group B actions. (I'd appreciate hints on how to clarify, as the negative comments are focused on preprints being neglected as a general class of published goodness )
2) Added the timeline from OPs additional comments. Basically group B never saw preprint before submitting their own paper because it did not exist then.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: This might depend on field, but it is not uncommon for two papers to appear on the same thing at pretty much the same time, and both might reasonably be published. In my experience, if a preprint appears on something someone else is writing, they will post theirs as soon as possible, to make it (reasonably) clear that their work is independent (preprints are standard in my field, although some papers are published without preprints being available).
If the paper appeared while yours was under review, and no preprint was available before (showing, for example, that they actually got the result two years before you), it is clear to the journal you submitted to that your work is independent. My expectation would be for yours to be treated as it would have been, but then but if accepted you would include a sentence pointing out that the other work was independent (and published while yours was under review, maybe).
If your paper is rejected by the journal you submitted to, you may find it hard to get it published elsewhere, if the time-lag between the two papers becomes too large.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/19
| 643
| 2,771
|
<issue_start>username_0: Ill be going into my first year of college fairly soon, with a prominent interest in studying and researching (as a career) pure/theoretical mathematics (especially number theory). However, the college I'll be entering only offers an "Applied Mathematics" major, which I understand may be more suitable for engineers, economists, physicists, etc (but my perception on that point may be incorrect). Given this conflict, I have been considering transferring to another university.
My question is: Is an Applied Mathematics major still satisfactory for my interests in pure math, or should I transfer to pursue a major more closely connected with these interests?
Thank you kindly!<issue_comment>username_1: Applied math is basically applications of pure math. That is, it is the math that is used in "field research" rather than theory.
This shouldn't be an issue for you until at least your junior or senior year. If there are advantages to the applied math program (e.g. it is cheaper), I wouldn't worry about it now. The time to "jump" is one (or at most two) years before you would go to graduate school, when you'll want more pure math in preparation.
Alternatively, take the applied math degree and take a few courses in pure math elsewhere as a "special student" before grad school.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: For undergraduate math, programs tend to be really similar. You do calculus, then multivariable calculus, then linear algebra and differential equations, and you move on to an elementary analysis course and abstract algebra. These are usually what a student does through their freshman year for any math degree (and many for sophomore year depending on how prepared you were).
After you go through these, there will be upper division courses in PDEs, dynamical systems, manifolds/geometry, complex analysis, numerical analysis, etc. I assume that the main difference would be that an undergraduate program with only applied math would have less algebra courses (more courses in ring theory, Galois theory, etc.), one or maybe no upper division number theory course (except maybe a cryptography course in a CS department), and more courses based in modeling, numerics, and differential equations (numerical linear algebra, finite element methods, etc.).
But there's really one way to know for sure: look at the courses they offer. It's always online. Don't look at just one year since the upper division courses tend to be every other year, so look at maybe the last 3 or 4 years. Look at what they offer and ask "are there 3-4 courses a quarter here that interest me?". Look at some syllabuses, crack open some books, look through Wikipedia. Then do the same for places you are wishing to transfer to.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/19
| 1,445
| 6,145
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I applied to grad schools I was accepted with full tuition wavers and stipends to all but one. That one gave me a good stipend and reduced tuition to a trivial fee ($300). They say you can even defer the fee until payday.
In general, why might a university not reduce stipend amount by the fees rather than charge the trivial fee?
It seems bureaucractically harder to have a fee.<issue_comment>username_1: The grad school wants to retain the right to raise, or otherwise "move" fees. Yes, it costs a bit more bureaucratically, but it would cost even more to go to a "no fee" policy and then institute fees. Apparently, the school is adopting a "wait and see" policy toward fees, government grants, alumni donations, and its other sources of revenue.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Actually, it’s almost certainly easier bureaucratically to simply charge the fee and increase the amount of money they pay you. You have to think of this from the point of view of budgeting. Each of the different fees you pay gets deposited in a different department or organization’s budget. Let’s say it’s a fee to the gym. The gym has a responsibility to manage its own budget in the university, and it pays for its services out of those fees.
Your stipend is being paid by the graduate school, and yes technically the grad school could just pay the gym automatically and give you less money. But what would happens if something goes wrong and the grad school doesn’t pay the gym for your membership? The director of the gym now has to go figure out why the grad school didn’t pay. But how is the director of the gym supposed to know how many grad students were supposed to have been paid for? How is the dean of the grad school supposed to be able to verify that the gym didn’t receive payment for the full complement of students?
It’s way easier, from the point of view of both the gym and the grad school, to just make you responsible for the fee, and to give you the money to pay it with.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: Our institution waives tuition fees for graduate students on a stipend. It seems logical to avoid paying us money we would simply have to pay back. However, I think the reason more so that they can provide a tuition (additional places in a course) at little additional costs to add students to an existing course (avoiding transaction fees and tax payments or exemption may also be factor). Particularly, if we graduate students are doing research to raise the profile of the university and attract external grants. It would actually cost them more to pay students additional stipend to contribute to these courses themselves.
However, we are expected to cover a ~$500 "Services Fee" annually. This may well be for the reasons suggested above, to avoid the graduate school paying for our internet, gym membership, student's association, or contribution to university buildings and administration. A stipend payment is already being made and the Service fee system is already run to cover these costs for undergraduates.
It may also be that it is easier for the graduate school to justify paying for our fees to their funding bodies than the services fee (half being a basically a gym membership). Somehow I doubt a Trust donating to say cancer research would be very impressed to find out they were paying for a gym membership for dozen's of graduate students.
It does seem to be an arbitrary fee (particularly as a lump sum at the start of the year) and most of the graduate students I've discussed this with would prefer to have it covered by the university. Another popular suggestion is have such services such as the gym or student internet (we get staff network in out labs) made optional. However this fee also covers our student's association which is dominated by undergraduates (who wish for the fee to be compulsory to be cover by Student Loans). Since our association recently (reluctantly) switched to "voluntary membership" due to changes in national legislation, i.e., opt-out with zero fees, this association has no interest in enabling graduate students to waive a service fee which indirectly funds them.
TLDR; So yes: Bureaucracy.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: I'm going to differ from a couple of the other answers and suggest that the most likely reason is **budgetary, not bureaucratic**, based on what I know about my state university in the US.
The money for your tuition, and possibly some fees, comes from Graduate College. The fees you have to pay go to the University, not the Graduate College. The Graduate College does get money from the University, but only a small amount because those in charge of the University want to allocate most of their money to other areas.
Because the Graduate College has a tight budget, they decide to cover your tuition to be competitive with other grad schools, but cut some costs by not paying all (or any) of your fees. While $300 may not seem like a lot to you, multiply this by the number of grad students the Grad College supports and compare with their small budget and it might cut their expenses by 1-2%.
Also (I think this is one thing username_1 is getting at) it may happen that the University needs to increase fees to deal with tighter budgets, and now the Grad College is not committed to covering those increased expenses in later years.
The first approach to cutting cost is often to trim expenses by a small amount in different areas to minimize effects of shrinking budgets. Were there much more serious budget cuts, you might have to pay more in fees, or get a significantly lower stipend, or have to pay for part of your tuition.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: There might be a tax or other governmental reason to have the fee in place. Often if you give something away it is taxed as a gift, i.e. at a higher rate, but if if you pay the student and then make them pay the fee, you shift the tax burden to them and or reduce the tax burden. Additionally if there is a student paying out of pocket or an external grant it is easier to say "everyone has to pay the fee"
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/20
| 570
| 2,516
|
<issue_start>username_0: (It is important to note that the articles are generally written by people for whom English is not their first language)
I recently got my first article to edit, and realized very quickly how uncertain I was about how detailed I was supposed to be in my editing. The article was very wooden though and required a lot of editing to hold a professional English tone (to no fault of the author's, since English was not his first language). I am very good at editing and so had to settle on just going with what made sense to me, but I am wondering if there is a consensus or specific set of rules to follow.
For instance, I always use the word 'one' to denote an inclusive general view in my essays (ie, "If one accepts the premise of <NAME>, then yada yada yada...), but this author continually used 'we', which seemed odd to me. I couldn't tell if it was something that needed editing, or was an intentional stylistic choice. I decided to be conservative there and left all the 'we's, but would really appreciate some input.<issue_comment>username_1: I think a reasonable rule to follow when editing an accepted manuscript prior to publication is to make the *minimum* changes required to conform with proper grammar as well as whatever style guide your publication uses. (The latter might include, for instance, citation formats as well as the use of British versus American English for spelling.)
If there is ambiguity in editing possibilities, I would propose the change to the authors, but also, if possible, flag it as an "author query" to ensure that the change is viewed and a consensus reached.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: While editing wrong English is a really good thing to do, and I do really like it when someone does it to me ( so I can learn how to do it better in the future) this has an important problem in research articles: **You may, accidentally, modify what they author meant to say.**
I don' know what you are supposed to do, but if you end up deciding to change wording in the article, I suggest you notify the authors you have done this and ask for review. Don't just tell them "this is the last version prior to publishing, is it ok?" but notify them that you reworded different sections of the article.
If you are going to go ahead of this I suggest you make 2 files. One with all the required formatting modifications and then another one built on this last one, with all the wording changes. Ask the authors which one they prefer.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/20
| 2,324
| 9,776
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to get into specifically top schools (in materials science and engineering) because I want to have a decent shot at being a professor.
I am aware that quite a few people have successfully done an MS and went on to top PhD programs, but my concern is that because the MS GPA is so inflated, it won't help me in my case. I already have a first author publication soon to be submitted, so my research experiences have been covered well, and my uGPA of 3.1 is my only weakness. Remember, I am trying to get into top schools, where they get so many applications that they are seeking any reason to throw them out.
Because undergrad GPAs are less inflated, I was thinking that doing a whole another undergrad might be more helpful in letting me demonstrate an improvement academically. In addition, some schools [require specifically an undergrad GPA limit, apparently without regards to whether the applicant has an MS degree or not](http://www.grad.illinois.edu/admissions/apply/requirements). But at the same time, since I would be repeating the same thing, they might not see it as that much of an improvement.
What do you think?<issue_comment>username_1: First, let me state that I am currently in a PhD program in a top school in the US. My undergrad GPA was from an engineering program in the top engineering school in my home country. It was 3.65. Compared to others who applied to my PhD program my GPA was probably below average. (Engineering is hard, yo!, and my school graded on a strict curve that permitted only 20% of the class to get A's)
I agree with others who have said that doing another undergraduate degree would be a waste of time. Having said that, you may want to do a post-bac or something similar if you don't want to go the masters route. This will at least allow you to get some more undergrad grades to bring your GPA up and cross the cutoff threshold. I also think that this would be a waste of time though, assuming you have at least the minimum GPA to get past the first review.
The issue with GPA is that many top schools use undergrad GPA to make themselves seem highly selective, and this is a stat that they are judged on in US News and World Report (That's my perception having talked with my program director in my PhD program). They like to have students with high undergrad GPAs, but not every student needs to have a stellar undergrad GPA.
The downside of doing the post-bac is that if you don't get into the program you want, all you have are some extra undergrad classes and a new student loan, and no "network".
Here's my suggestion.
1. talk with the program directors for the PhD programs you're interested in and ask them what they suggest. They may say that your undergrad GPA is super important, or they may say focus on the GRE and letters of recommendation and your research. They may also tell you if they think your GPA would completely preclude you from consideration.
2. Assuming the undergrad GPA isn't going to kill your application immediately, consider doing a masters at one of your preferred PhD universities. make sure you crush the GRE, since that's a relevant entry criteria for most schools. This will do a couple of things.
First, it will give you another set of grades, at the university to which you're applying. These grades will mean something and provide easy context for the admissions committee. e.g. if you do classes at Harvard and apply to Harvard, they should know what your Harvard grades mean. If you do classes at USC and apply to Harvard, Harvard may not know what your USC grades mean. e.g. is an A at USC the same as one at Harvard?
Second, it will allow you to become acquainted with professors at your preferred school. This could be the thing that gets you in. If you have someone on the admissions committee who would vouch for you and agrees to be your adviser, you have a much stronger shot of getting in no matter what the rest of your application looks like. If the faculty know you, they are more likely to admit you assuming you're a good student among your peers!
Lastly, if all else fails, when you graduate the masters, you'll have a masters from a good school, and even if you don't get accepted to that school for your PhD, your masters at a good school with good grades will signal to other schools that you are a competitive applicant (again, this presumes your undergrad GPA doesn't torpedo your app before the admissions committee even looks at it.
All this being said, it's still a bit of a crapshoot. I'm in a PhD program at a good school. I teach a class that many of the masters students who want to go on to the PhD program take. The class is regarded as the hardest quantitative class in the school. It's a requirement for the PhD students. Several of the masters students who have done exceptionally well in this class who have applied to the PhD program have been rejected in their PhD application (but ended up at other great schools). Others have been accepted. I'm not sure how much of an influence this class has, but I haven't seen anyone who has done badly in the class get accepted. At the school you apply to, there will probably be one or two classes like this. Typically they are classes you'd have to take in the PhD program if you're accepted anyway. Make sure you take those and do well. This reduces the uncertainty both for you and the faculty about your ability to succeed in the PhD program should you be accepted.
Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As others have said, getting a second undergrad degree is a waste of time. Don't bother.
The unfortunate truth is that your undergrad GPA may keep you out of top PhD programs even if you have a Master's degree with a perfect GPA and multiple journal publications.
Top engineering graduate programs receive hundreds or even *thousands* of applicants every year. Despite what others may tell you, they're *not* looking for an excuse to reject applicants because it keeps their US News rating high. They're looking for excuses to reject because there are far too many applications to judge each one on its merits, and far too many highly qualified applicants to admit them all, and the committee members are faculty who have many other demands on their time and who want sleep occasionally. In some departments, applications are filtered by GPA even before the first human committee member reads them.
By far the best way over that hurdle is to cultivate a champion -- a faculty member who is active and visible in their research community, who will write you glowing letters describing your strong potential for independent research (in personal, technical, and credible detail), **and who will call up their colleagues in other departments to tell them to watch for your application.** The goal here is to interest someone in your target department enough to rescue your application from knee-jerk rejection and evaluate it on its own merits.
And then your application needs to shine on its own merits. It must provide compelling evidence of your strong potential for independent research. Yes, your graduate GPA is a (small) part of this, but you need to sell yourself primarily as a *future researcher*, if not a *current* researcher, not just someone who excels at classes. Moreover, this evidence needs to be stronger than for other applicants with higher undergraduate GPAs. Do not assume that one first-author publication is enough.
All that said... Focusing on research and finding a champion will *improve* your chances of being admitted to a top program, but they will not *guarantee* anything. In particular, even with a strong research record and vocal champions, you may still be rejected because of your undergrad GPA. Admissions is best considered a random process; the most you (or anyone) can do is improve your odds.
Incidentally, the same advice goes for your longer-term goal of getting a faculty position. Yes, having a degree from a non-top-10 department makes it harder to get an academic position, but you can work against that disadvantage by developing a killer research portfolio and multiple champions (not just your advisor). Conversely, a PhD from a top-10 department will not guarantee you success on the faculty job market; you also need a killer research portfolio and multiple champions (not just your advisor). Start developing that now.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: I have an answer for you, but you and other people might not like it.
In my opinion, you would look exceedingly foolish and naïve to re-do your undergraduate program or do another undergraduate program.
Understand, I'm almost 50 years old. Nobody is going to give a damn about your 3.1 GPA if you excel at your master level work. If you get a 3.9 or higher in your master level work, that will look very good. **But if you create a phenomenal master paper on top of that**, you'll be good-to-go. Don't worry about "the top school". Instead, worry about whether or not it's accredited.
Long ago, one of my professors told me that students are way too worried about their GPAs. This professor was highly respected in the structural engineering field and had written his own textbook on structural analysis.
In my opinion, if you re-do your undergraduate program or complete another undergraduate degree, I'd say you're not exhibiting mature, adult judgment. It would look very amateurish and inexperienced in life.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_4: Moreover, it has been indicated by many that yes a solid gpa in a masters degree program and an excellent explanation describing why your undergraduate gpa is low might help in certain circumstances. Research experience is a big plus as well. Not all is dead!
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/20
| 1,845
| 8,123
|
<issue_start>username_0: For a while ResearchGate provided something called **impact points**. It was calculated as the sum of the impact factors of all the publications an academic had. For example, if an author had been an author on four papers with impact factors 0, 2, 4, and 3. They would have 0 + 2 + 4 + 3 = 9 impact points. They've recently stopped reporting this value because supposedly they no longer believe impact factors are valid indicators of an individual article (of course, as a side note, they continue to report their own mysterious ResearchGate points which in addition to publications also weights things largely irrelevant to the research community, but relevant to encouraging behaviour on the site that they desire).
If you also knew the number of publications someone had, you could also quickly determine their average impact factor per publication.
I found the combination of average impact factor and the sum of impact factors to be a really useful metric when getting a quick feel for an academic's publication track record. In addition, I think that impact points seemed to provide a reasonable starting point for discussing some of the trade-offs in publication strategies between quality/significance and quantity.
Given that this site includes many who are mindful of the problems with metrics for evaluating academic output, allow me to justify why I like the combination of average impact factor per paper and the sum of impact factors (i.e., impact points):
* Person-specific citation based metrics (e.g., h-index, total citations, and so on), which are often cited as preferable, are heavily influenced by time. Citations accumulate over time. Thus, a young researcher a couple of years out of their PhD may have been publishing high quality work in top journals, but may have very few citations. In contrast, a researcher may have been publishing lots of publication at the mid-tier level for many years, and may have a lot of citations. This connection with time is more than the linear increase in publication output you might see given a research with consistent output each year. Instead, In a simplistic model, it is a multiplicative effect of average number of publications per year, time since first started publishing at that level, and average time between publications and now.
* While journal impact factor is field dependent, you can start to adjust for this mentally, if you know your field. For example, I'm in psychology, and it tends to have lower impact factors than psychiatry due to various citation practices. As an aside, it would also be useful to use other journal impact metrics to form the average or sum that are less field dependent (e.g., the SNIP or SJR).
Probably the biggest issue with impact points is that some authors have publications with many more co-authors, or have more or less first-author papers, although this is less of an issue if you focus on average impact factor per paper.
So my question is, **given that ResearchGate has stopped reporting impact points, is there an alternative provider where you can quickly obtain the sum or average impact factor of the publications of a given academic?**<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not aware of any specific tools like ResearchGate which provide an average impact factor for a researcher - maybe others know of something? However, you could fairly painlessly generate the average SJR/SNIP value for a researcher through SciVal in Scopus.
If you add a researcher in SciVal, then click on the **benchmarking** tab, and then click on **View list of Scopus Sources for the selected Researchers and Groups** this will bring up a list of journals the researcher has published in. You can then click on **Export** and download the list of journals, with their SJR/SNIP values into excel, where you can then just use the =AVERAGE formula to calculate the average. I just did this and it took me 3-4 mins max.
Back to your specific question, you could use InCites to follow a similar process as above to calculate a researchers average Journal Impact Factor (Thompson Reuters) however it's not as straightforward as SciVal. As far as I know, you can't generate an XLS list of journals a researcher has published in within InCites (so you would need to get this list somewhere else). You can however export a list of journals from InCites with their impact factors but you would then need to link your researchers list of journals with the incites list to collate the relevant impact factors. you could use excel VLOOKUP to do this and then calculate the average. This is a lot more effort though, so it would depend why you want this average measure of research impact in the first place and whether it might be enough to just use the scopus impact metrics.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: An alternative to looking at impact points that indexes a similar concept is citations in the last full year. This can readily be obtained for anyone with a Google Scholar profile. Author search on Scopus also shows it.
E.g., see the 2015 column below (e.g., go to [this example](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qc6CJjYAAAAJ), hold mouse over to see value):
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Anuc9.png)
Impact factor is essentially the mean number of citations per article per year in a given journal (where for example if the year for gathering citations was 2008, the publication years would be 2006 and 2007). But there is also a five year impact factor which extends the number of years articles are considered (e.g., 2003-2007). Depending on the life cycle of citations in a given field and journal, expanding the window of time for considering articles may alter the estimate of mean citations per year. My main point is that the underlying construct that is being measured is **mean citations per article per year**.
Thus, in a rough sense, the impact factor provides a rough guide to how many citations per year an author can expect from a given article published in a journal with a given impact factor. Of course, the distribution of citations in articles is positively skewed, but as we aggregate over many papers, the central limit theorem will begin to kick in.
Thus, citations per year in the previous year is in some senses addressing the same concept as impact points (i.e., the sum of the journal impact factors of the papers that an author has published in). In particular, it doesn't double load on years as an academic (i.e., total citations double loads for both the time you had to publish more articles and time that those publications have had to accrue citations). There are of course a few differences:
* It is based on how much people cite the particular author rather than the journals that they publish in. In many respects this is a positive, because it is more aligned with the authors achievement.
* It is typically based on a smaller sample size than journal impact factors. So there is greater scope for outliers to skew the distribution. I.e., one or two papers with hundred or thousands of citations may distort the underlying pattern.
* It uses the full history of articles by the academic. Thus, depending on the citation patterns of the field and how old the authors articles are, this may introduce particular distortions. For example, older academics may have articles that have stopped being cited particularly in fast moving fields. In fields with citation half lives that are often over 10 years (like mathematics, psychology, and the social sciences), this should not be a problem for most active academics.
As an aside, all citation based metrics including impact factors are contingent on the database or articles used to specify articles and used to source citations. Google Scholar is quite inclusive. ISI Impact Factor has greater quality control and is less inclusive. So, from casual observation, It seems like Google Scholar picks up a multiple of between 2 and 5 times more citations than ISI or Scopus. Thus, any comparisons need to be mindful of that.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/20
| 960
| 3,948
|
<issue_start>username_0: I was recently asked to referee a paper for a "moderate" but perfectly acceptable Elsevier journal, with an impact factor of around 1. The article in question was very poorly written, had several significant misconceptions in the introduction, but looked potentially quite interesting: I submitted a recommendation of major revisions, and included a list of fifty points ranging from the essentially (mathematical) grammatical to several significant scientific points. Frankly, I felt I was, if anything, quite generous -- rather than submitting a 2500 word review with a large number of salient criticisms, I would probably have been justified in recommendation rejection on the grounds that it was difficult to discern what had actually been undertaken.
Recently, Elsevier made me aware that the other reviewer had submitted their comments on the paper. I was interested to see if they had agreed with my judgement -- and on which side of the accept/reject fence they had fallen. Much to my surprise, they had suggested outright acceptance, had written a very terse review **which included details that were not originally in the paper, but could only be known to one of the authors** [or their friends].
What should I do about this? I feel like having a badly-written one paragraph review recommending acceptance of a flawed article makes a whole mockery of the whole of peer review -- and additionally potentially means that Elsevier can't select reviewers appropriately.<issue_comment>username_1: Transparency is key. If you suspect some kind of fraud, be open with the editor, and send an email to prove you acted proactively. If your suspicion is strong and you do not act clearly, you risk later appearing as an accomplice.
Probably the other reviewer is a friend and is also superficial (because he is riskying highly if discovered). This is a typical proof that the peer review system is, somewhat quoting [Churchill's definition of democracy](http://wais.stanford.edu/Democracy/democracy_DemocracyAndChurchill(090503).html), the worst system to disseminate research findings but all the others which have been tried before.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Ultimately this is up to the action editor. The reviewer you speak of hasn't hidden his/her obvious affiliation with the authors, so hopefully that will be noticed. A good action editor has sole discretion, with the peer reviews as supporting evidence. A terse 'accept' review may carry no weight, but tough to say. Most likely, if you made great points, they will be passed along.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: My perspective as an Elsevier editor: This happens sometimes and is easy to see through. An outright "accept" on a first submission is so rare as to raise eyebrows in any case (at least, in my field). The editor has probably noticed the lack of thorough review by this referee and will give the review the appropriate weight (i.e. none). That said, I would not see any harm in emailing the editor if you are concerned, so long as you keep it polite and to the point.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: If your suspicions are true, you're describing peer review fraud. I think that this question is highly relevant, since it deals with the same core issues: [Is it okay to report classmates cheating on exams?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/19256/is-it-okay-to-report-classmates-cheating-on-exams/19338)
Many editors have been on the lookout for this kind of fraud because of incidents such as [this one](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/china-cracks-down-after-investigation-finds-massive-peer-review-fraud). Still, it's easy to dismiss these incidents as happening to "someone else", and that "my/our journal" has no problems. As an editor, I would absolutely want to be told of this so I can investigate, as well as possibly blacklist the authors if fraud is confirmed.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/20
| 551
| 2,359
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have submitted my paper to a reputed APS journal. It has been 65 days, and I still did not get any response. Should I contact the editor regarding this? I have two papers published in this journal and last two times it only took around 45-50 days. However, I am in a dilemma, if I contact the editor will he get mad at me. Hoping to hear useful thoughts from you.<issue_comment>username_1: The average length time in review differs between journals but also depends quite a bit on the reviewers themselves. I once had one held up 4 months due to one reviewer, who was ultimately replaced, which then took another 2 months, and that was just the first round.
It is totally acceptable to contact the action editor to ask for a status update, and I don't think he/she will get 'mad'. It's probably common and part of their role to field such questions.
Reviews do often get held up; this will also serve as a reminder to the action editor to make sure everything is proceeding as it should.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: As an author, I have had to wait anywhere from three days to seven months to get referee reports back from APS journals. The time lapse is highly variable, although two months is a typical time. I wouldn't even start to worry until it has been at least three or four months. The APS editors are also generally pretty good about letting authors know if there has been an extended delay (most commonly caused, I understand, by a difficultly in finding willing referees). If there's going to be a really long delay (over five or six months), they will probably send you an e-mail.
As a referee for the same journals, I can tell you that the editors like to hear back from referees within two weeks, but that doesn't necessarily mean the referee needs to submit a report within that time. Often, a potential referee will take the whole two weeks just to let the editor know that they are not available. And if they do promise a report, it may arrive another two to four weeks later.
In any case, if you are curious about the status of your article, you should consult APS's Author Status Inquiry System before contacting the editor. The system (located at <https://authors.aps.org/Submissions/status/> ) provides automated information about the workflow status of your paper.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]
|
2016/07/20
| 1,110
| 4,541
|
<issue_start>username_0: I want to start writing on an article that is probably going to be published in one of the IOP journals. There is a template for their publications, but it lacks some (for me) essential packages. Since I've never submitted an article myself, I want to be sure the editing process goes as smooth as possible by eliminating problems early. So here's the question:
Can I add all the packages I like to the template without pissing off the editor? I talk about things like `inputenc`, `fontenc`, `biblatex`, `microtype`, etc. Nothing fancy, but very basic LaTeX stuff. I also prefer to have a separate `.bib` file for my bibliography, since I have them already organized that way and do not want to manually copy the info into the bibliography as suggested in the template.
I already read the guidelines for authors and there was no mention of modifying the template, only that its use is highly appreciated.
If anyone could provide any (preferrably inside info) on how editors work with submitted LaTeX files, that would help a lot! Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: Unless explicitly forbidden, adding packages is usually ok and fully expected - e.g. in order to add support for listings, tables, symbols, encodings, operational utilities (extended macro/logic support), or specific features thereof. This should, however, never mean a general change in the appearance of the paper. Therefore, packages that globally alter fonts or font sizes are usually not allowed.
As for using a separate `.bib` file, you can usually work with that and (if explicitly requested by the guidelines - this varies a lot by publisher) copy the formatted information into the `.tex` file as late as for the camera-ready version (when nothing changes any more).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I usually publish in IOP journals and I can confirm [username_1's](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/73074/20058) remarks.
As an example, these are the packages included in a recent paper of mine:
```
\documentclass[10pt,a4paper]{iopart}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{iopams}
\usepackage{amsopn}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{subfigure}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{listings}
```
Notice that for what concerns mathematics, there are a few idiosyncrasies related to the `iopart` class: e.g., this class is incompatible with the `amsmath` package, and it is suggested to use the `eqnarray` environment, which is otherwise deprecated. I thus suggest a careful reading of the IOP LaTeX guidelines, which can be found [here](ftp://ftp.iop.org/pub/journals/latex2e/IOPLaTeXGuidelines.pdf).
A few notes on the example above:
* The package `iopams` is an extension for `amssymb` to provide
predefined names for bold greek letters (thanks to <NAME> for
pointing out this and Canageek for reporting it here).
* The package `subfigure` is obsolete but the the newer `subfig` package seems to be incompatible with `iopart` because it includes the `caption` package.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: As someone who moonlights as a type-setter for a mathematical journal let me tell you something about bibliography.
Bibliography styles are different from one journal to another. There is nothing more terrible than having to reformat 60 entries by hand, and there aren't many things worse than having to reconstruct the .bib file in order to use the journal bibliography style more easily.
Sending the .bib file to the publisher is not a bad idea. If they can handle LaTeX, they can handle bibtex as well. I never worked with biblatex personally, so I can't quite tell you about that. But I do recommend that you submit you .bib file separately, and save the hassle to the type-setter.
Of course, this assumes that your .bib file wasn't hand-made. When you add an entry by hand, it has a high percentage of chance not being up to standards. Always use MathSciNet, if not then ZBMath, and if not, then Google Scholar as a last resort.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: If these packages do not interfere with the paper layout than it is completely OK. However you should follow the instructions for authors style guidelines. For instance, if the template uses a specific package for generating tables, then you shouldn't change it.
Regarding the bibliography I think that it is allowed to use bibtex and derivatives as long as the paper references style is preserved.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/20
| 524
| 2,266
|
<issue_start>username_0: While looking around for an answer to this, I have been getting conflicting opinions/answers, so I decided to ask here: Is publishing a great research paper as an undergrad more important than great letters from your professors when applying to grad school?
Another phrasing: If you had only one of these (great research vs. great letters), which scenario would more likely help the graduate application?<issue_comment>username_1: Short answer: In practice, letters are more important.
Long answer: Doing great research is great, but if I'm on an admissions committee, how do I *know* your research is great? I can read your paper, but unless it's close to my area of expertise, it can be hard or at least time-consuming to determine its quality. I probably have too many applicants who wrote a paper to read everyone's paper in detail (depending on how common undergraduate authorship is in my field). And even if I'm convinced the paper is great, how do I know what your contribution to the paper was? (In the fields I'm familiar with, it's very rare for undergrads to author solo papers.) On the other hand, if I have a letter from a faculty member whose word I trust saying that this paper is great and you did most of the hard work (or even that he/she is very impressed with your potential), that's much more useful.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: "Yes."
If you were asked to pick one, really either one is extremely helpful for getting into graduate school. Great letters will speak to your potential as a researcher, and great research shows it fairly concretely - but as has been noted, it may be hard to recognize research quality outside of a particular subfield. In my field however (public health) there are some broad strokes measures of quality that someone can pick out. And if we're talking about publications, that's rare enough in my field to be an unusual entry on someone's CV.
Moreover, I'd suggest that this dichotomy is something that likely won't exist, especially if you do great research. A good letter discussing that research, cementing its contribution in the admission committee's mind and setting it up as "a preview of things to come" *should* follow pretty naturally.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/20
| 555
| 2,447
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm currently getting ready to apply to graduate programs in Chemistry, and am beginning to contact potential advisors. My problem is that until recently, I was planning to focus on field X, but have realized that I cannot see myself doing a PhD in this field.
After reading some papers in field Y, I am really excited about the possibility of doing research in this field, and have identified some potential advisors in field Y.
The problem is that all of my previous experience is in field X, and I don't really have any experience in field Y. Should I address my reasons for deciding not to pursue field X? And how do I demonstrate my sincere interest in field Y?<issue_comment>username_1: Some of the other students in my lab came from different fields. They always showed an interest in what we were working on even if they didn't have the technical knowledge just yet. I think if you let your potential advisor know that you are interested in their area of research, that you have some skills that they are looking for or can be just as useful in the new area, then you should be fine. Just let them know your desire to work in the field and the skills that you can bring to the lab. I don't think its necessary to specifically talk about why you are not interested in field X, but it is important to show that you can contribute to field Y. Do your homework on the lab and talk about specific projects that they have worked on. You don't need to be an expert, but if you ask intelligent questions about their projects, they tend to take that as a sign of interest. Also be ready to relate what you have done in field X to what they are doing in field Y. Often, students coming in from other fields provide a different prospective that ultimately makes the lab better and the research being produced stronger. Good luck.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't see much of a problem here. You've had a change of heart. It happens all of the time to many people. I had a change of heart no less than 5 times when I was an undergraduate.
You can demonstrate your interest in Field Y by approaching these potential advisors and telling them about your predicament. Tell them you've been in Field X long enough and want to go the route of Field Y. Tell them you're at a turning point and it's time to make a change sooner rather than later. I suspect they'd be happy to have you tag along with them.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/21
| 4,043
| 16,627
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a new graduate student in a computational lab, and the workstations provided by the lab I'm in right now are...slightly subpar. Long story short, a lot of it is nearing a decade old, and there doesn't seem to be a push to replace it with new hardware anytime soon. Since our lab tends to work with pretty demanding programs, this creates a major issue.
Over at Workplace SE, [the](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/19236/correct-way-to-ask-for-better-computer/19237#19237) [standard](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/6630/how-do-i-request-new-equipment-for-the-office) [advice](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/9409/how-can-i-convince-my-boss-that-we-need-better-machines) seems to be to point out the economics of the situation (devs = expensive, time lost = money lost), but I'm not convinced that the same reasoning holds in academia. In addition, from talking to labmates and various administrative staff, it seems that the lab won't have the funding to replace all (or even most) of the machines anytime soon.
Which brings me to a potential solution: I have a decently powerful computer sitting at home. Would it be a good idea for me to spend some of my own money to upgrade it and bring it in to the lab? My advisor is okay with this plan, but I don't know if there's other things I should worry about (e.g. unclear line between personal/lab equipment, or people coming to rely on the machine).
This is somewhat related to [this question](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/62589/is-offering-to-use-personal-funds-for-research-a-good-idea), but it seemed to be asking specifically about money and a grant application, while I'm more concerned about potential consequences of bringing personal property to the lab and using it for an extended period of time.<issue_comment>username_1: At least here in Germany there is this thing that (at least in public institutions) electrically powered machines (even phone chargers) need to be checked for safety by a specified person and then labelled that they are safe to use. This is because of liability. What happens when your PC causes a fire that burns down the building (obviously the worst case)? If the lab didn't officially approve, you might be in trouble.
In case this is handled differently in your workplace and you get the OK from your boss, you'll be fine I think. But as the first commenter said, you should not be forced to bring your own hardware. Keep bringing up the topic. Tell them how much time you're wasting with old hardware and maybe they'll budge.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Another PhD student in my floor asked how to fix a slow system. Here is my supervisor's reply:
>
> If you need to have a fast desktop, the best is to convince your boss to spend 3 days of your salary to buy a top of the line Linux machine (or a week of salary to buy a Mac).
>
>
>
Anything else is stupid on their part. Note that your cost is not only salary, but is also taxes, work insurance, university fees (where applicable), rent of the office...
**Addition:** Also, they got a grant to pay you, they need you to publish. The longer time you spend waiting for code to run, the less you will publish, and the less competitive they will be for future grants.
*\*Note: he was being moderately flippant, don't take the two days and top of the line too literally, but the point still stands.*
---
The problem with bringing your own equipment is that:
1. It is yours, and if you wanted to do something else with it, you wouldn't.
2. If it breaks, and a lab is a moderately risky environment, it is your loss and no one else will pay for it. Also, you may not get support from the IT department to fix it.
3. It sets a precedent for other students to do the same. The stipend you get as a PhD student is quite meagre, and buying a computer out of it is a significant investment.
4. In some institutions research data is considered confidential, and they forbid for it to live in non-institution owned devices.
This said, I often bring my laptop to work when I need the extra mobility, or my own workstation (a top of the line Linux machine) is overworked, but I don't rely on it.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_3: They really ought to provide adequate hardware, but realistically it may not happen. I have no problem with using my own computers for academic purposes (and had no problem during my PhD). However I wouldn't bring a personal desktop PC in to work. Or at least I wouldn't until I knew the security and IT support staff well, and then I'd be reluctant.
It's yours and you should have the first and main say on what happens on it, while they will rightly try to run policies to protect their network (which may conflict with your gaming/bittorrent-for-perfectly-legal-purposes). Software licences may also be an issue; they may imply or explicitly state that the software is to be installed on systems owned by the institution purchasing the license.
If you're confident to set it up securely (and there aren't any licensing issues), how about remoting in to it at home? You can do your development work on the machines provided (whether that's code, simulations or whatever), and then run them on your own fast machine.
Background:
An issue that your supervisor may face is that bog-standard desktops are a reasonable price but as soon as you want anything better the (only approved IT) supplier who got the deal on the basis of volume sales will charge a small fortune, meaning that there just isn't enough money in the budget (ability, not willingness, to pay for it). Combined with this, university IT departments can make it very difficult for staff/students to *build* a decent machine and get it on the network. These restrictions can often be circumvented if you have good local IT support and are on friendly terms with them (which is essential if you're doing anything remotely computational).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: I personally use my own laptop in lab, though mostly because it's convenient to have my data on hand whether I'm at work, at home or wherever, not because they couldn't afford a computer for me. As I understand it, there is no need for it to pass any sort of certification or be put on the institute's balance (at least here in Russia). Although it may be important to note that neither me nor my computer get in the same room with actual laboratory work too often.
The only possible issue is that some inspection may get wondering how exactly this particular bioinformatician is supposed to work without any device to his name. It sounds contrived, but I've heard that FASO inspectors sometimes are, let's say, overly meticulous. And, if you are planning to ever bring your machine out, better avoid getting it anywhere near the institute's bureaucracy. If it has a label on it, you are always at risk of being accused of theft and having to spend lots of time proving that you aren't a camel.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: I am also a grad student in a computational group and would agree with many of the answers above saying that you should be hesitant to buy/bring your own computer if that is going to be the only machine doing all of the calculations. In that case your PI should supply you with appropriate tools to do your research.
However, if (as is true of my group) you are using your computer as a portal to set up calculations to be run on a super computer cluster, the age and speed of the desktops in your lab is not going to affect your research in any meaningful way. In that case, bringing in a laptop to access articles and for music (my own guilty pleasure denied to those poor saps in wet labs) would be appropriate to supplement the slower desktop machines that you use to set up your calculations.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: So much depends on the specifics of your situation. I used my personal laptop throughout grad school [in the US] and it was totally fine; in fact, most of my department did the same. I was the only one who used the machine, but no one cared that it wasn't university property.
In contrast, one of my jobs since graduation had very strict departmental guidelines on what computers could be used when and where. We had a few very old project laptops that were struggling to meet our data collection demands. Our IT department came back with a quote for a laptop that was insanely overpowered for our current and any future needs and about twice what we would pay for a comparable laptop on the open market. When we went ahead and bought one on our own anyway, it turned into a Big Incident that (really unnecessarily, IMO) went all the way up to the dean, because our IT department had a fit. For the same reason, I wasn't allowed to donate an old unused machine of mine for project use.
TL;DR: You already know your adviser is okay with it. Check that your department (admin, or IT person/department if you have one) doesn't have an issue with it either. If it's all good, agree on ground rules with your adviser before actually going ahead with it - who can use it, what happens if someone other than you breaks it, what happens when you graduate, etc.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_7: This is possibly more of a comment, but a bit of personal experience/observations from Europe:
What is the ideal situation: You are provided with the equipment you need.
What is the reality? You generally find you lack equipment - be it a good PC or a second monitor, etc.
When I did my PhD, I got an old computer - a Dell desktop that at the time was about 4 years old and technically weaker than my old laptop at the time... well, I used it - got a desktop at home a year later which was a lot more powerful (which I specced considering my PhD work) and then another 1.3 years later got so fed up with the old Dell that I replaced the entire thing with my own Ultrabook (which despite weighing 1.4kg is or was more powerful).
Incidentally, I did bring up the idea of buying my own computer (small desktop) when they PAT tested the Dell (weird British habit these "PAT tests"...) and the suggestion was that it would not be allowed. Hence my solution was to get the Ultrabook instead (which cost 3 times as much but which I still have - and from which I write this post actually)
The chance that I would have gotten a new PC towards the end of my PhD was also pretty much zero - why should they pay for it? (EPSRC only funded my tuition fee and maintenance... - heck, I had to be happy that the university paid for some experimental work...)
I could also still use the Linux boxes and the Cluster just fine vie the University wifi using SSH so it wasn't a problem in any way.
Incidentally, other students were better off - the "CFD lot" got new computers at the start and one guy funded by industry even got a laptop to use (not sure if he got to keep it, it was an option, not sure what the end result was though).
Now as PostDoc at a different institution I would love a second monitor - and instead have a Dell workstation that is weirdly specced...
It has an E5 Xenon in there which I don't need and an NVidia Quadro (not a low one) but I only get a single monitor... I'm not the only one who'd like another monitor but effectively everybody in the institute has to make do with a single monitor. Why? I don't know. IT decided what we get to use.
A PhD student in the UK started and the mood was "he has a powerful laptop he does not need a PC". (I hope they did get him one eventually...)
Incidentally, the same VM setup that took 1 hour to run on my desktop took 2 hours on his laptop - despite it having about 70% of the processing power of my desktop in benchmarks...
So what is the reality? Invariably in academic research you generally end up using your own equipment - because the equipment supplied is lacking in some respect or you want to work at home, etc. etc.
However, there are a some points to consider:
* If you do commercially or otherwise sensitive work for industry, using your own equipment may be very much frowned upon.
* Different institutions have different policies - some object to you taking your work home. Obviously, if you start writing a literature review at home there is little they can do, however you would be better off following company policy and leaving work in the office. (Unless they furnish you with a work laptop that you can take home.)
Then there is the topic of licenses:
* If you can use free software or can afford the licenses for the software you use, great, no problem.
* However I have noticed that it appears not to be unusual for some students to obtain software from illicit sources, this may have consequences if any questions are asked, for both the student and potentially the university (if they condoned such practices).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_8: I'm going to try to not answer this **whole** question,
"Would it be a good idea for me to spend some of my own money to upgrade it and bring it in to the lab?"
Rather I'll answer this **part** of the question,
"Would it be a good idea for me to spend some of my own money to upgrade it and bring it in to the lab?"
Since you already have approval to bring in your own, you likely can get approval for something which might be lower cost or be faster - public cloud computing.
If you are looking for long-term, then buying is cheaper, but for short-term, using cloud is great. AWS has a lot of compute and even GPGPU compute. They are a bit pricey, but there are plenty of other cloud providers out there. At a university I worked at last year, they often would use cloud computing for projects, especially those lasting less than a year.
In addition, you will eliminate any possible issues of:
- others using it, or turning it off while running
- power consumption
- risk of fire or other hazard
- storage
- location
- damage by others
- and more.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_9: I discuss about this problem for years now in my university (did my B.Sc. and M.Sc. here and now starting my PhD).
We also got a room with computers for students where lab sessions are held and some do their homework. However, several problems arise:
* Software is hardly up to date, often more than one year behind the current stable release
* Hardware was bought from the cheapest deal the university could get (of course, no money in academia) - resulting in a crappy keyboard, mouse and display and (most important!) most of the time equipped with a HDD instead of a SSD (should be getting the defa
* Users do not have the rights to install or even update any software. Often important software is missing to do proper data analysis (e.g. notepad++ instead of the default windows editor)
* If you come to the lab, somebody else might sit on your PC and you might have to switch to another PC at which you may not have set all your personal settings yet
* Students pretend that they were not able to do certain analyses because the software was not installed/too old/crashing on one particular PC in the lab. Seriously?
I started early buying myself a good working machine which serves as my personal laptop at home and at work. I have everything installed I need and do not have to worry about others taking it. I can take an external display and work efficiently. Downside: Carrying the laptop with me every day or leave it in the lab (but miss it at home then).
I understand the point that universities have to offer capacities of what they want to teach. However, a lot of money is invested which could be used more efficiently:
* Get the students a proper chair
* Get the students a proper monitor, mouse and keyboard
* Buy only 1/5 as many pcs as monitors and other stuff (for those who really have no PC) and let them bring their own laptop
* Teach them using open-source software and avoid paying for licenses!
Nearly everybody nowaydays has their own laptop (even the most social sciene students) which is able to do the same as the (old) desktops PCs standing around in university labs.
However, as mentioned above, certain problems arise regarding softwares for which the university has only a certain number of licenses for specific PCs, sharing data in internal networks etc. (but this may all go beyond the question here).
**In short:** Get yourself your personal work setup and work efficiently! Do not wait for others to do something good to you. Your result counts in the end and nobody asks why you took so long or were not able to get XY running.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/21
| 291
| 1,330
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am suggesting a chair rotation for a department in sciences. I was wondering about pitfalls and advantages, things to watch out for, best practices and general advice. If you have organized such an an arrangement or have been part of one I would like to hear your recommendations.<issue_comment>username_1: I've been involved in a few. It's a good idea because it gives everyone a chance to participate in a leadership role. The biggest thing you can do is **get organized** -- ideally through documentation but maybe with something as simple as having outgoing chairs train incomings. It doesn't matter much how you rotate although at the beginning you'll probably want to start with more experienced faculty. To that same point, there might be some faculty who are not be capable of taking on the role, for whatever reason. It does no one any good to utilize these people just because it's "their turn." Good luck!
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: There are arrangements with a strict rotation and arrangements in which the next chair is nominated by a vote of the faculty. In either case, a higher level dean will probably have to approve the appointment. There are typically some faculty who simply shouldn't be chair for various reasons- don't lock yourself into a strict rotation.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/21
| 789
| 3,596
|
<issue_start>username_0: I recently reviewed a paper for which I recommended rejection. I wrote a comprehensive review with a list of items that needed fixing to motivate my decision. I spent some time (between a day and a day and a half, perhaps) carefully reading the manuscript, writing and motivation my review.
Today I was curious to see what happened to the paper but since the journal uses Manuscriptcentral, the information regarding what decision was taken does not appear on the online system. I googled the title and found out that the paper has indeed been accepted by the journal. Having a quick look, it is obvious from its present form that the authors did receive my review and made changes accordingly.
I would have expected to receive a response letter to my review, especially within the context of my negative recommendation. However, this did not happen. On the one hand, I understand (and fully respect) that it's up to the editor whether to follow a reviewer's recommendations or even fully discard their review. On the other hand, given that I spent some of my time producing the review, it would have been nice to at least be able to see the response of the authors (even if not requested to produce a second review). Precisely because the paper was eventually accepted, I would have liked to read the author's criticism/rebuttal of my own criticisms - I might have been wrong after all.
What is the reason behind some journals keeping reviewers "in the dark" regarding what happens to the paper? Would it be appropriate to ask the editor to have a look at the author's response letter?<issue_comment>username_1: Peer review is for the benefit of the readers of the published journal. It is not for the benefit of the reviewers. The editor would only send information to the reviewer if it would lead to an improvement of the publication.
It would be okay to ask the editor to see a letter. But I think a better strategy would be to set your role as a reviewer aside and adopt the role of a reader of the published paper. You may directly ask the authors questions about the published results without considering the confidential review materials.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You learnt that the authors' response was essentially "we accept the reviewers comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly." If such revisions were clear to the editor there's no need for further review *or communication*.
Don't forget that while you may turn reviews round quickly (or you may not), there are plenty of reviewers who *even for a second review* have a high chance of sitting on the paper for an unreasonably long time. This (on top of workload) is a further incentive for the editor to minimise unnecessary links in the chain.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I have no experience as an editor, but have read and discuss these things quite a bit. I infer from these discussions that the main reason could be the workload.
It seems like it is easy to give referees some feedback, but in fact it involves a not-so-trivial action to write an e-mail, to decide what to say and what not to say, what to share, etc. And if the editor makes the wrong call here, he or she can end up with an angry referee or author to deal with. The worst enemy of editors seems to be the long tails or really painful cases, so not risking triggering one would be a good incentive not to communicate more than strictly necessary.
As a referee I do appreciate feedback, but it needs to be well thought-out to be properly embedded in the workflow of a journal.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/21
| 1,027
| 3,321
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is there some standard software for creating framework diagrams for computer science such as [this](https://ai2-s2-public.s3.amazonaws.com/figures/2016-03-25/15433a87b41e7bbbd5faeec5df03a84477c33d30/6-Figure2-1.png) or [this](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Kalbacher/publication/283565445/figure/fig4/AS:293838037630990@1447067855798/Figure-5-Parallelization-scheme-for-OGSIPhreeqc-Two-distinct-MPI-groups-and-relevant.png).
I know powerpoint can do some things like this, and I have been using illustrator. However, I was wondering if there was something like the automatic python class diagram generators but for overall logic. This is all in the context of making the diagram for a journal publication.<issue_comment>username_1: The standard at my university was to draw the diagram in LaTex.
You can pretty easily make a flow diagram with [Ti*k*Z and PGF](http://mirror.unl.edu/ctan/help/Catalogue/entries/pgf.html):
```
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,arrows}
\begin{document}
\pagestyle{empty}
% Define styles
\tikzstyle{block} = [rectangle, draw, fill=blue!20,
text width=5em, text centered, rounded corners, minimum height=4em]
\tikzstyle{line} = [draw, -latex']
\tikzstyle{cloud} = [draw, ellipse,fill=red!20, node distance=3cm,
minimum height=2em]
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance = 2cm, auto]
% Place nodes
\node [block] (model) {Model};
\node [block, below left of=model, node distance=4cm] (view) {View};
\node [block, below right of=model, node distance=4cm] (controller) {Controller};
\node [cloud, below right of=view] (user) {User};
% Draw edges
\path [line] (model) -| node [near start] {Updates} (view);
\path [line] (controller) |- node [near start] {Manipulates} (model);
\path [line] (view) -- node {Sees} (user);
\path [line] (user) -- node {Uses} (controller);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{document}
```
results in: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ToRb3.png).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Unfortunately, in my experience, most1 academicians facing the same problem just use Word or PowerPoint or MSPaint or whatever they have on hand. There are a number of [professional diagramming tools](https://www.google.com/#safe=active&q=professional+diagramming+tools) that you can find, most of which have an incredible range of symbols and templates that you can use, and some of which are free. Any of them should suffice for what you need to do.
---
1) source: I made this up
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_3: In my undergraduate classes in computer science I've used a tool called [Lucidchart](https://www.lucidchart.com/). It is free for academic use, and I was able to just Sign in using my Google account which, in turn, is linked to my .edu email without filling out any forms. You should be able to do same as well if you have an edu account linked to Google. The whole sign up process is described [here](https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/usecase/education-request).
I found it to be a great tool for creating UML's, flowcharts, etc: it is easy to use, it has a variety of options for exporting your diagrams, and it is definitely more precise than Word or PP. Hope this helps.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/21
| 369
| 1,541
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have recently submitted 2 papers to a top tier IEEE conference; both were rejected.
The reviews for paper B included two accepts and one reject.
However, some of the comments the reviewer who rejected gave us seem to relate to paper A. In fact, he actually **named** an algorithm appearing in paper A (in his review for paper B), saying its evaluation "is not convincing".
While there's definitely a possibility both options were not good enough, shouldn't they each be judged based on their own merit? **Should I mail the PC chair about this?**<issue_comment>username_1: I think you should mail the chair. It may be to no avail, but the chair will at least be informed of the practice.
Like you, I believe each paper should be judged on its own merits. Don't reject Paper B because you didn't like something in Paper A. That's truly ridiculous. But it could be a new rater who's unfamiliar with the process.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you should definitely contact the PC chair. It is important that each paper is evaluated on its own metric. As a matter of fact, they should be considered independent entities.
Apart from above reasoning, most top tier conferences would have some sort of blinding process. Seems like in this case it was single. It might be coincidental that both papers ended up with same reviewer.
That is why double blinding is a bit better, but it is what it is for now. Also, two accepts and a reject should still have the paper accepted, shouldn't it?
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/22
| 627
| 2,659
|
<issue_start>username_0: Is it unethical or illegal to grade a proof exam without reading all of the proofs? Someone I know would give students 0 points if they do not use theorems presented in lectures, or if they have one solution that solves multiple problems at once will ignore it. Also would make up criteria to fit his/her own agenda for punishing students. Then he/she would leave it up to the students to possibly argue for changes in office hours. Is there some standard criteria for grading proofs, either on a legal or professional level?<issue_comment>username_1: Based strictly on the information you have provided to me about this mystery person, I'd say the instructor engaging in these activities is highly unethical and may have some other psychological issues. That's just what I sense "prima facie". "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", but I could easily be wrong.
Then again, maybe the mystery person has explained the grading criteria, but hasn't explained it clearly enough.
Be very careful about making a formal accusation against this person. If you make an accusation, make sure it's iron-clad and infallible so that you're certain to win.
Many years ago, in an Engineering Mechanics class, I openly accused my professor of erring in his solution to an exam question. My exam question was marked as "incorrect" with very little partial credit. I stared at that problem for some time and concluded my solution was correct and the professor's was wrong. I treaded very gingerly as I described my disagreement with his solution, but I went step by step and ultimately, before the entire class, he admitted he was wrong and I was right.
I was about 18 or 19 years old at the time. Trust me. Be very careful. Professors are smart and they don't like to be proven wrong. My professor was, thankfully, **a person who loved truth more than being correct**.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is not necessarily wrong for a proof to be marked wrong without reading the whole thing. If it sets out to prove the wrong thing, it is wrong. If it starts at the conclusion and works towards the hypothesis (a very common mistake) it is wrong. If it assumes something incorrect, or simply not shown, that makes it easier to arrive at a proof, it is wrong for the purpose of the assessment. If it proves multiple things at once, it is almost certainly wrong, in such a context. If it is illegible it could get no marks regardless of other factors. If it is correct but hard to read, it may be worth no marks if that was the assessment criterion.
And, no, there is no universal mark scheme. For anything (at university level).
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/22
| 994
| 4,324
|
<issue_start>username_0: FYI: I am teaching undergraduates, and am fairly recently out of grad school myself.
I find myself unconsciously treating/regarding students differently based on their engagement with the class. I find that I tend to favor students who do their work, arrive on time, and participate in discussions over those who do not.
By "favoring" I don't necessarily mean that I give them special treatment or higher grades - but I find that I do treat them better, visibly. I am more patient with them and speak to them warmly. Enough that students have noticed.
I believe I am having trouble being professional, having been in their position so recently. I can see that certain students are really enjoying the material and find the work to be exciting, and I respond emotionally to that energy.
I realize that it is inappropriate to treat students differently based on the level of their engagement with your class, so how, if you teach, do you not take it so personally?<issue_comment>username_1: The issue of favoritism has been extensively studied at the primary and high school level (K12) but not so much at the university level except when it involves student athletes. At the primary and high school level favoritism can cause havoc in terms of the learning environment, causing resentment, alienation, and seriously damaging your influence with the students. However, I am not sure if this translates to the university setting.
It appears your primary concern is with the social setting or how you interact with the students as you state that the grading is still fair and consistent. One way to make sure that your treatment of students socially is consistent would be to develop some sort of a log in which you track how many times you interacted with a student in class and how you perceived you treated the student. Make a table with the student names, number of times you interacted, and the level of warmth and you will begin to see a trend over time.
This assumes you have the time and patience for such an approach. I wouldn't waste a lot of time with this but maybe a 1-2 weeks of data collection followed by direct intervention to connect with the students who have had less contact with you would be enough for a semester.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: [Since there will be very different views on this matter, I've kept my answer in first-person to indicate that this is my viewpoint and not a guideline of a sort.]
Whilst I agree with the comments that to an extent, it is perfectly natural to respond differently to different levels of engagement, I think a good strategy is **to consider the world outside of the classroom and remember that behaviour in the classroom is a product of many causes.**
I do this when I teach and I notice that I start disliking students for not turning up, lack of engagement etc. I then recall my first year at Undergrad level. I was severely depressed, attended barely 20% of my classes, just about managed to pass the year. I am sure I must have appeared absent, disinterested, the sort of student that my lecturers would ask "why would they be here in the first place if they don't attend anything?" - but my classroom behaviour (or rather, the absence of it) had absolutely nothing to do with the classroom itself, nor the teaching, not even the material.
My personal background helps me to consider such a scenario- but I think there are plenty of other things, such as:
1. undisclosed/not-diagnosed disabilities and/or illnesses affecting students
2. international students having to find their way in a very foreign world
3. related to 2., oftentimes young students and their first experience abroad, on their own
4. family background: crises at home, responsibilities for parents/grandparents/siblings that would not normally be considered
5. Perhaps just the natural way of things: students realise that what they thought they would love to study turns out to have been an illusion. They are not at the stage of dropping out (possibly due to parental/financial pressures) but are clearly not willing to
Whatever they do, I try to refrain from judgements on their character as much as I can. When a student is not responsive to my teaching, it does not necessarily imply a judgement on me, either.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]
|
2016/07/22
| 715
| 3,173
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing an article in which I need to reproduce a section of my previous paper. This section includes standard math formulations and very little text. Although I am including this section with some minor changes but overall structure of section would be same. I will include proper citation but still I am worried if this could be a case of self plagiarism ?
The Journal in which I want to submit my work have following clause on `copyrights/permission`:
>
> Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.
>
>
>
The journal in which my article has been published says like this on `copyrights/permission` :
>
> Subscribers may reproduce tables of contents or prepare lists of articles including abstracts for internal
> circulation within their institutions. Permission of the Publisher is required for resale or distribution
> outside the institution and for all other derivative works, including compilations and translations. If
> excerpts from other copyrighted works are included, the author(s) must obtain written permission
> from the copyright owners and credit the source(s) in the article. Elsevier has preprinted forms for
> use by authors in these cases.
>
>
> As an author you (or your employer or institution) have certain rights to reuse your work. [More information.](https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright). One more thing that this journal says on permission:
>
>
> As a general rule, written permission must be obtained from the rightsholder in order to re-use any copyrighted material. Typically the rightsholder of published material is the publisher unless it is explicitly indicated otherwise. Copyrighted material can include figures, illustrations, charts, tables, photographs, and text excerpts. `Re-use of any borrowed material must be properly acknowledged, even if it is determined that written permission is not necessary`.
>
>
>
PS. My research field is Mathematics.<issue_comment>username_1: **The legal issue regarding copyright is what concerns me**. You need to investigate that. I don't think self-plagiarism is possible. Could there be partial-plagiarism if your past work involved a partner?
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Technically, it is not self-plagiarism if you were to cite the relevant material, even if it's your own. It would be advisable if to rephrase the section. If considerable amount of detail is repeated from thee pervious paper, it would be better to have consent from your publisher before hand.
I notice this many times among authors. Those who make a minor improvement over their own research tend to have major portions of their old papers rephrased (some even repeated, but again, that's not encouraged). As long the overall concept is novel this won't be a problem.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/23
| 370
| 1,619
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted one of my research paper in a fake conference by mistake. Now I want to withdraw my paper from it, But I am facing problem in withdrawal as no email id is given on that website. The problem is that now my paper has been accepted by another conference. But according to Turnitin, my abstract is already published somewhere else. Does anyone here know how and where to report such fake conferences?<issue_comment>username_1: This is a horrible situation for you. Until this moment, I never heard of "fake conferences". I just read about them, and the source I was just reading said, and I'm paraphrasing, there is very little difference between fake and legitimate conferences because they are both based on status-enhancement and profit-making rather than the spreading/seeking of knowledge. Unbelievable.
**I would report it to your administration and discuss it with them to find out if there's any official action that can be taken**. If there isn't any recourse, then I think you have found yourself a **MAJOR** career opportunity. Set up a business that clarifies which conferences are fake and which are legitimate. Sort of like an "Angie's List" of conferences.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: The fake conference is unlikely to co-operate – it's a *fake conference* operating for unscrupulous reasons. You can try, but I wouldn't expect them to play ball.
Your best chance of success is to clearly explain the situation to the organizers real conference, and hope that they understand your situation and accept your paper / talk request without problems.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/23
| 962
| 4,071
|
<issue_start>username_0: My papers were rejected from a top conference venue in computer science due to laughably fallacious arguments. The reject decisions were based upon the following comments:
1. The one's complement checksum of an all zero bit sequence is zero!
2. O(n2) can be more efficient than O(n), because for n = 0.9, 0.92 < 0.9 !
What should I do now?<issue_comment>username_1: First, Wrong decisions are made everywhere, everytime in the academia. Calm down.
Second, as far as I know about CS conferences, once a decision is made, there's no chance to appeal against a rejection. However, you may want to send your paper to another conference. Eventually it'll be accepted. Sometime, somewhere.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: What you need to do is to understand why your paper was rejected. I'm pretty sure your paper was *not* rejected from what you describe as "a top CS conference" for such obviously false reasons. Reviewers don't decide whether the paper is accepted or rejected: they advise the programme committee. The programme committee evaluates the reviews before coming to a decision and a review containing such obviously nonsensical comments will carry very little weight. If your paper was rejected because of the reviews, it was the other reviews, not this one.
Note also that, at top conferences, many papers are rejected simply due to bad luck. Usually, there are many papers that are a good enough quality to be accepted but the conference isn't big enough to take all of them. The actual reason for rejection may just be "We liked your paper and it's of essentially the same quality as papers we accepted, but there just wasn't room for yours and we liked these other ones just slightly more."
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: It sounds like you've already gone through the rebuttal process, so as far as I know, there's no further appeal. I'm going to focus on what seems like the core issue: what do you do if your paper is rejected for reasons that are utterly stupid?
1. Take a deep breath (or whatever your preferred calming action is). Rejection is a big part of being an academic; it's never pleasant, but learning how to handle it well is absolutely necessary to survive. That doesn't have to mean shrug it off; have a coping mechanism for handling rejection, and use it. (As an aside, I think it's something that doesn't get discussed enough when talking about career choices; I've known people who would have been fine researchers and teachers, but would have been destroyed by how much they had to deal with rejection.)
2. Take some time (a day or two, or a week) away from the issue to get some distance. During that time, feel free to be furious and vent (to appropriate audiences) about how stupid the reviewers and PC were.
3. When you're ready, come back to the reviews. Retread them carefully; it's quite easy when you're angry to misread a comment that gives important context as a vapid criticism. This time, read as charitably as possible. Consider that you might misunderstand something important; consider that they might have said something unclearly; consider that their comment is confused because they're confused about something in your paper. Someone in your audience read your paper and had this response; they may well have misread your paper in a stupid way, but even so, that's something you need to fix, even if it seems blindingly obvious that they're wrong, because if one person had that misunderstanding, it's quite likely other readers too.
4. If you really can't make sense of the review, ask a colleague. Don't ask them "can you believe how dumb this review is?", ask, "I'm really not sure what this review is saying, could you give an outside perspective?" If your colleague can't make sense of it either, then you can throw up your hands about it. The reviewer really did screw up, either by having stupid comments, or by writing them so unclearly that they can't be deciphered.
5. Revise, resubmit, and move on. Rejection is part of the lifestyle.
Upvotes: 4
|
2016/07/23
| 1,184
| 4,819
|
<issue_start>username_0: In my current study. I am trying to solve a problem A by using a technology B. My supervisors consider themselves as experts in B. I have a scholarship for 3 years and 1.5 years are over. I have passed my exams and my Ph.D. proposal presentation was passed 6 months back. But now I realize that B=evolutionary computation is not a useful technique and is incapable of solving any real problems in the industry. I have a first-hand experience with that, now.
I wish to explore C and D as techniques but my supervisor is totally against it stating he cannot help me in that. Considering I am using a scholarship I am under additional pressure to do only what his 'vision' states. Any other technique I propose is challenged vociferously by them even in the inception stage.
What should I do? I can confront them and say that EC is useless and I wish to explore techniques which actually do something. There is no top conference which will accept my work but it lead to extreme pressure and argument. My supervisor is only interested in his growth within the academic community of EC and has no concern about what industry does. I do not wish to be an academician and investing my time on training myself in such a work is not in sync with my aspirations.
Kindly suggest as to what I should do? Should I give up the scholarship and look for other Ph.D. opportunities? That is a huge waste of time and effort, though. The scholarship is given by university and not through my supervisor's funding.
What is a good way out here?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Just because you don't see the usefulness of what you are doing, doesn't mean that is will be forever useless.
>
>
>
You advisor probably sees the field better than you. Trust him/her. And you never know what can you do with that stuff in the future.
More than that, research doesn't **need** to be useful. There are simple theoretical advancements that are proper research projects/results but cannot be directly applied now. Or ever. Still, people can build upon it, or avoid that path altogether, because of that work.
And this is not only academia. Go check how many patents IBM has for stuff that was never developed into products...
>
> Research is about extending the boundaries of knowledge.
>
>
>
(This sounds like a deGrasse Tyson/Sagan quote - it might be).
Of course, these developments are not as sexy as something that can change the world tomorrow, but they are as valid as research, albeit sometimes more difficult to get funded. Once you get your phd, you can work in whatever you want (aka whatever you can dig up funding in).
IMHO, it is not worth wasting a couple years and a funded position over this. I know I didn't. I also believed that the subject of my phd thesis was useless. Well, it isn't and, as a postdoc, I'm working on expanding its boundaries. I'm quite happy about it, if I'm honest.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: First of all: **talk to your supervisor!** what does he expect as results? What does he think? does he really want to leave you for the rest of the time doing nothing?
I think, to say that a technique B is not useful to solve A can be a PhD alone. Are you really sure that it is not? Did you exploit EVERY possibility? Or are you just not interested in finding the right way but are more interested to do something that works?
Even dough in the end, Einstein, Newton, Gauss and Shannon are the ones who were right, but never forget about the hundreds and thousands of people, that tried another approach/theory but found out it was a dead end! This is research. Writing **that** and **why** some approach not works is as valuable as finding the right path. Mostly regarding such a big field as you mentioned.
If you can really state that there is no way to use this technique (and propose other/ use similar techniques like ANN or ML in general), that's already good research. I really think, you just don't like to do a PhD at all?
>
> I do not wish to be an academician and investing my time on training myself in such a work is not in sync with my aspirations
>
>
>
Three possibilities:
* give up the PhD and go into industry. There are a lot of companies which do research, mostly in the field I assume you are working on (machine learning, big data?)
* Ask your supervisor what you should do next and stick with this PhD
* if you really find another topic, which you find very interesting (even if it may fails! that's academic research, stick with it...), you may start a new PhD. But I would only suggest that if you do it for the fun of research and not as training. What you actually train as a PhD is doing research on your own. So don't expect the same experience and usefulness for the industry you would earn in the industry.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/24
| 584
| 2,497
|
<issue_start>username_0: Why does CollegeBoard (the organization that does the SAT, GRE, etc.) exist? Why don't universities just give their own entrance exams? It seems such centralization of power in CollegeBoard would be a bad thing for diversity in the universities.<issue_comment>username_1: There are too many exams to efficiently administer and take if there is one for every university. Combining them into a service makes it easier for everyone involved. If a US student wants to apply to Harvard, MIT, and CalTech, do they have to take one or three exams? What if they apply to ten schools rather than three?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: Applicants to a particular school may be widely dispersed geographically, which makes it infeasible for all of them to be at the university in-person to take the exam (appearing in person may be particularly problematic for foreign applicants), and at the same time infeasible to find space and proctors to give exams in every combination of (student location, university). Besides, trusting a local party to administer it would eliminate most of the control you propose to give a university over their own exam. As well, different degree programs at the university would probably want different exams.
Besides that, there's the cost of so much redundant exam creation. Do you think individual universities would have the resources to normalize year-over-year difficulty of an entire suite of exams?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The other answers make good points, but I think they miss some of the most important.
* Having such an exam would not help with any of the status games that US schools like to play. It would discourage applicants, and thus actually be counterproductive in such games (since accepting a low percentage of your applicants is easier if you have more applicants).
* Actually, a big reason that universities pay attention to SAT score is that having an entering class with high SAT scores is one of the status games universities play.
* Effectively, no one at any university has the least interest in creating and grading such an exam. Certainly the faculty would hate it.
* It would require a lot of money (or to use university parlance: "resources") to run such an exam, whereas the SAT is paid for by the students. As discussed above, it would lower a university's status and expend faculty goodwill and time (which is effectively money as well). So, it's a lose/lose/lose.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/24
| 865
| 3,695
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying for a PhD position for last few months but all the Professors say they need a masters whereas I have quite good lab experiences than a masters student even. I am very much depressed nowadays. What should I do now? If the professors do not trust the skills written in the CV, they can give a conditional offer; but they don't.<issue_comment>username_1: In most European countries following the Bologna process, a master's degree is a "hard" prerequisite for being accepted into a PhD program. There is no easy way around this, in large part because the PhD typically encompasses only the research phase of a standard US PhD program. By skipping or omitting the master's degree, one would have a "weaker" degree than someone who completed the master's.
Your best bet would be to find a PhD program which offers a master's program as "preadmission" to the PhD program. Not all doctoral programs offer such master's degrees, but many programs designed to attract international students will.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In the UK it is often not a **requirement**, but a desirable qualification.
Academics have discretion to offer PhD's to whatever candidates they wish, subject to them meeting the funding agencies criteria (which for science, at least, is usually a minimum of a 2:1 undergraduate BSc degree).
In practice, many professors are obviously unwilling to offer PhD's to students who aren't completing a masters since there are so many possible candidates that theres simply no reason to take sub-standard students, however I know of many cases where students on masters programmes have been offered PhD's then never completed the masters and went straight on to a PhD.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: There are universities and research centers in Europe who accepts students without a masters degree, but they would require to take full credits of masters and to complete modules, before or while the research is being conducted. Therefore you might want to get in touch of those universities.
Here are a few which I know of:
* <http://adaptcentre.ie/>
* <https://www.insight-centre.org/>
Most of the time you need to show that you have enough skills with your previous experiences, publications, the letter of application/statement of purpose. An interview may follow where you will be asked about your work and the domain of work in which you have applied.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: I know of some faculties in Germany that (formally) accept students without a master's degree, but I have never personally witnessed a case where a student with only a bachelor's degree was accepted as a PhD student. I can only speak for Germany, but it's best to read the Promotionsordnung (PhD regulations) of the faculties and look for the admission section. For my faculty it read something like: General prerequisite is a master's degree, but in special ocassions and if the student proves eligibility he can be accepted to the PhD program, but has to do extra coursework.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_5: In my experience it is quite common in Australia for students wanting to undertake a PhD to be enrolled in a Master's degree with the understanding that after a year they will undergo a conversion to a PhD. The Master's degree is never completed and in the cases I know of there was always a clear understanding between the student and the supervisor that this was the expected path, i.e. the intent of both parties is that the student will complete a PhD, and the initial enrolment as a Master's degree student is a formality unless something goes badly wrong in the first year.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/24
| 1,179
| 4,734
|
<issue_start>username_0: Sometimes I give a talk for a limited number of persons (typically well below 15). Here, the audience consists of persons from different subfields of the same fields. Consequently, I am often not familiar with the background of all persons in the audience. In the past, I sometimes was unsure whether all the attending persons are familiar with a specific topic that is considered basic in my subfield but might not in theirs. I then asked directly, whether they are familiar with the specific topic. The answer was almost always "yes" although later it turned out that the topic was not so clear to everybody.
How can I rephrase this question in order to get an honest answer?<issue_comment>username_1: When I give talks in similar situations, **I typically assume that at least some of the audience members will be *unfamiliar* with much of what I think of as basic**. Your job is to "remind" them, without spending excessive time on the topic. A good place to use this technique is with definitions. For instance: "... a polynomial, for example 3x4-5x2+2x+6." (**The best way to teach most things, particularly definitions and algorithms, is with examples.**) You can do this fairly unobtrusively, so that those who don't recall the definition are reminded, while those who do are still not offended.
Another point to remember is that generally, **it's good for some of your talk to be a refresher**. You might say something like "most of you are probably familiar with this, but just to make sure we're all on the same page..." This material shouldn't be the majority of your talk, but 5 or 10 minutes of this is often very appropriate, say in a 25 minute talk.
In most talks I start by saying: "If you have questions as we go along, please ask." If you get many questions on material that you think of as basic, be ready to slow your pace. A variation on this is to have some **worked examples early in your talk**. Give the audience time to think about a question, then **ask audience members for the answer** before revealing it on your slides. **Their responses (especially nonverbal) can give you a good sense of who knows what.** Typically, I talk with slides, but answer miscellaneous questions on a whiteboard.
A final option is to get to the room early, and try to talk one-on-one with the audience members, as they arrive. If you ask them then, you may be more likely to get an honest answer. Another version of this is to ask the seminar organizer (or whoever schedule you to give the talk) what knowledge they think is reasonable to assume of the audience.
To summarize,
* Make educated guesses beforehand about what your audience knows (typically less than you would think), asking them (or the organizer) if possible.
* Make liberal use of examples and "parenthetical explanations".
* Plan for 20-30% of your talk to be review.
* Adapt the speed of your presentation based on the feedback you get during the talk.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: In talks I have given, I simply over-exaggerate the question. Then I tone it down and re-ask it until I see a majority of hands.
Example:
"Show of hands, please: How many people here feel they have an *excellent*, *clear* and *thorough* understanding of Graph Theory?" (1 out of 20)
"Okay, how many of you have a good, decent familiarity with Graph Theory?" (6 out of 20)
"All right. How many of you have *heard* of Graph Theory?" (18 out of 20)
The first question is so exaggerated in the thorough grasp being asked about that no one feels embarrassed to not raise their hand, so I get pretty honest answers.
---
However, I agree with [username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/73224/46356): it is absolutely crucial that you define the terms that you use. You may cover the definitions extremely rapidly—and should, if the majority of your audience is already familiar with them to some degree—or you may cover the definitions thoroughly and in detail, if it is a totally new subject for all of your audience. But you need to *define your terms*. (Even if you *don't* plan to argue with me. Or Voltaire.) ;)
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I usually ask in the negative. "I assume that not everybody is familiar with woffles. However, I could skip over this part if you feel bored." Then look at their faces, usually several people will slightly shake their head. In this way nobody has to state that they do not know something.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Tell them this one: "The saying goes that in any talk, the first twenty minutes are for the audience, the next twenty for the speaker, and the last twenty for God. Pay attention, now; this part's for you."
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/25
| 573
| 2,400
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a student at the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, but did research over the summer at Duke with a mentor from Duke, as part of a program run by NCSSM. I am currently creating a poster to present my work, and I do not know which institution's logo it would be appropriate to include. When I am adding a logo to my poster, what am I acknowledging that the owner of the logo has provided? It seems to me that both institutions have provided me with support, so I do not know which one I should acknowledge. I suppose that I could add both, but I would rather save that space for content. What is the protocol for situations such as this one where two institutions have provided support to a project?<issue_comment>username_1: If both institutions have supported your project, you should acknowledge both in your poster.
To save space, you have a variety of options:
* Make the logos smaller by scaling them.
* If available, use a small, square version of the logo rather than a larger rectangular version.
* Put the logos in a part of the poster that is underutilized. (For example, left-align the title and authors, and put the logos over to the right side next to the author list.)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There is no formal protocol. The general protocol is to ask your supervisor or colleagues. This is usually a question that depends on the particular group or institution, and where usually the "group's habits" is the precedence that you want to follow.
The general protocol that probably suit you well is the one [username_1 answered](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/73235/13552), namely, acknowledge both.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Just one question: **Who paid?**
If they
* paid you to do the work
* paid for you to present the work
* bought the equipment or the consumables
* paid the mentor who guided you through the work
they you should be recognizing them.
And there is nothing wrong with having multiple logos, but no pressing need to have any at all. (In my business—particle physics—it is common to have everyone from the group display a logo on their slides/posters as part of establishing a brand, but those were always small because *everyone* was concerned about space.)
If someone asks you can tell them how it happened that you got support from multiple sources.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/25
| 1,036
| 4,343
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am 28 years old and did my PhD last year at an applied math institute and left. However, I am still in good contact with my old working group and my PhD adviser told me I should come back.
At the moment I am a self-employed programmer. Although I really like my current job, I sometimes wonder if I should give the academic career another try. The main reason why I left was that I did not feel integrated in research society.
To be more precise, most articles I read where between 1950-1960. Most of my focus area are was out of scope from my adviser (he is an expert in numerical optimization, I was doing measure theory and Markov operator theory combined with numerical optimization). I had a lot of fun to modernize old theorems and try to apply them to numeric problems. Although I enjoyed the freedom of doing research on my own, I often was wondering if the results that I found are already known. My advisor was often surprised about my fundamental results, but he could not tell me if they are actual new. In fact, after searching persistent for one of my main theorems, I found it in a booklet from 1960 written with a typewriter - with a much shorter and genial proof. Although most of my other theorems have been peer-reviewed and published in B journals, I am still waiting for someone contacting me: "Hello, your result X in journal Y is known for a long time".
The author of this typewritten book is actually still alive (85 years old), on facebook and on top of that even accepted my friend-request. However, lives in New York and I live in Germany, so I can't easily visit for a short talk. I did send a text message, but never received a reply, I am not sure if it was because they do not want to talk about math anymore or if they just did not receive it, because facebook sometimes hides messages.
I was searching the web for professors doing similar research to what I am interested (by entering some keywords together with university into google). However, when I scanned their recent publications, I had no idea what they are doing.
I think I might missed the opportunity to connect to other working groups. I love teaching and doing research, but I also hate doing isolated research and having no defined task.
Is there any specific way of finding people who do similar research that I am not aware of?<issue_comment>username_1: Your search for researchers on given topics is very similar to a literature search. May I suggest you identify the authors of related papers? There is a [question tag on this site](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/literature-review) covering such issues.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: MathSciNet is a pretty powerful tool for finding things in math, and some parts of applied math (from the question, I think it cover your areas). (There's also Zentralblatt--I'm less familiar with that, but I think MSN will have more relevant tools for you.) See about getting access to that as a guest at a local university.
Then here are some things you can do:
1. Starting with papers you know that are close to your area, look them up in MathSciNet and look at the papers citing them or citing their reviews (of course you can do the first with Google scholar also, for papers that are available online). Read the reviews to see if they are of interest. For the ones that look interesting, repeat. You can similarly look up all publications by a given author.
2. You can also search in MathSciNet by [Math. Subject Classification](http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/msc/) codes to look for papers in certain subareas of applied math.
3. Without MathSciNet access, you can search for things on the arXiv or Google Scholar with keywords/authors/etc. I guess this is what you have been doing. Note, unlike Google Scholar, arXiv has subject classifications and anyone can read any paper listed there.
4. The subject has probably advanced a lot in 50-60 years, so it's may not be strange if most of the stuff going on now doesn't seem (at least on the surface) too close to the papers you were reading from the '50s and '60s. So you might try looking for and reading some survey papers/lecture notes/textbooks to get a better sense of the area first.
5. If possible, try going to some conferences/local seminars and talking to people.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/25
| 943
| 4,435
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have published a monograph and now would like to see it reviewed by a/some journal(s) in the field. Given that there are many other books they could publish a review on, they might not find a reviewer who is interested (I have already contacted them).
So I was thinking of asking a colleague to review the book (I have collaborated with him in the past, but we're not at the same institution). Is this ethical? Presumably he would be somewhat less likely to voice criticism than someone who doesn't know me personally. (Although this criterion would exclude a whole lot of people)<issue_comment>username_1: In the book fields I am familiar with there are two types of reviews. The first is the traditional peer review which is used to help decide if something is publishable. The second type of review, which I think you are asking about here, is a summarizing review.
Finding peer reviewers to judge the if a book should be published should be left up to the editor. If the editor asks for suggested reviewers, you should provide suggestions. In this case, having previously collaborated with the colleague, the editor may see this as a conflict of interest. If you suggest your colleague, you should be upfront about the prior collaboration
For reviews that summarize the work, if you know a publisher that takes unsolicited reviews, and you want a review there, then it is fine to ask people you know if they would be willing to write a review. Knowing, and even being friendly with, someone is not generally considered a conflict of interest. The issue is that the person you want to ask is a former collaborator. This might be seen as a conflict of interest. You can still ask the colleague and mention that you do not see the prior collaboration as a conflict of interest. You might want to suggest the collaboration check with the publisher prior to writing the review.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: If someone reads a book review in a journal, they expect that this review reflects an unbiased assessment of the academic qualities of the work in question. The key word here is *unbiased*.
In your described scenario, it would be the author who suggested that his or her book was reviewed in the first place (+1 potential bias). In addition, the respective reviewer would be one of the author's choosing (+1 potential bias). Finally, the reviewer would be a former collaborator (+1 potential bias).
So, there are three potential points of bias. None of them *inevitably* has to lead to a biased review: the book might be suitable for a review article in that article anyway, the chosen reviewer might be the candidate anyway that is most fitted for the task, and the final review might be in itself fully fair and objective.
On the other hand, if you suggest your own work for a review article, it might receive more attention than it normally would (and perhaps deserves). If you invite a particular person to write the review, you might be choosing someone who you can assume to agree with your work, perhaps because they work within the same theoretical framework as you do. Researchers from other camps might be less favorable of your book, but they are not given the same opportunity to voice their concerns in their review article, because they never were invited to write one. If the reviewer is one of your former collaborators, they might be more forgiving in their evaluation of your work than actually warranted.
The reader doesn't know that all this is going on behind the scenes. On the contrary, for all what they know, none of the points exist which have the potential of biasing the review, because usually it's not authors who invite reviews, it's not authors who choose reviewers, and usually there should not be a relation between reviewers and authors (at least if the field is large enough). The readers don't expect any of these things, and they therefore cannot take them into consideration when reading and evaluating the review. This is a situation that I consider quite unethical, because information that is crucial for the readers is unavailable to them.
In order to alleviate the situation, you should insist that the review contains a disclaimer which minimally states that the reviewer and the author are former collaborators. In my opinion, it should also reveal that this particular reviewer was suggested by the author.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/25
| 1,237
| 5,097
|
<issue_start>username_0: Four months in my postdoc and I feel the mess, up to the point that I can't further do any, any work in my office. Nothing. My passion, bioinformatics, is gone.
An office with 12 students where just 8 should be, and plenty of disorganised stuff, people coming in and out, chatting, not very clean... I would say it's more similar to a bar than to a real work office. Almost all them work on the bench, so they come and go to the computer frequently.
I've been promised to get a new place in a 5 students office in about a month, but this has already a delay of 2 months since I should have moved there like 2 months ago. This is the reason to be in a limit situation.
What to do? My mentor knows almost nothing about this. He knows I'm waiting for the new place but thinks I'm doing well, when this is far from true.
I work in bioinformatics but seems my mentor thinks this is like kid games. I feel homeless moving through libraries trying to go ahead with my work.<issue_comment>username_1: You said "Everyone is doing well, they like the mess. I have a real problem, can't do anything"....I believe you should talk to your mentor immediately about the situation and start cleaning the mess on your part. Slowly but steadily keep on cleaning it. I don't think the mess is NOT bothering others but the thing is that no one is willing to do anything about it. If you start cleaning the mess, (by cleaning what I mean is to start assembling and organising things) I believe this is how others are going to realise their mistake and they'll also start doing something about it. I think you need to take an initiative, which is not easy, but someone has to. And that someone is YOU :) Good luck!
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: To add another perspective: You write that everyone else is doing fine, and in fact is doing productive work. I know that people have very different working styles (in our department, all office space is 'flex-space', i.e., no-one (including full professors) has an 'own' office and people have very different preferences whether they want to sit in a more quiet place or a more social stting), and it can very well be the case that you are not productive in a setting where others are.
Nevertheless, I think you should consider the possibility that it *is* actually *you* who has the problem, not the setting that is the problem. If there is no easy solution (i.e., a different space for you), then, in fact, I guess it would be unreasonable to expect **11** people to adapt their working style rather than you (**1** person).
I do not mean this negative at all, but there are solutions to work in a busy place, like putting on headphones and the like. Have you considered such options?
Good luck!
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: You are on a bad place. The main problem with things such this, that surely not you are the only one seeing this problem, despite that nothing happens.
In such cases, the System (this time: a system from people, from their wishes and customs) will probably behave on a way, that as you start an action to change it, it will try to attack you back.
You must be able to defend yourself. It is very important, that while you are trying to change it, *you must be enough good to be defended by your productivity*. If it isn't so, nobody will care if you had right or not. And the System will say things like: "you aren't enough well in communication", "you are not a teamplayer" and many similar. Nobody will say: "We hate you because you won't allow us to sit in a dirty office room", although it would be the truth.
Carefully try to look for people having similar problems as you have.
If you aren't significantly better as the others, you probably can't do anything.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: You are in a difficult psychological position, a problem that is not of your choosing and where you don't feel you have any control. It is easy in such a situation to assume victim status and cease to exercise any motivation at all.
I suggest you check with your mentor and emphasise the importance of your new office.
In the meantime it is very important that you take some small actions to improve your situation (and empower yourself). Take an honest appraisal and brainstorm actions that can help you. Do them. Be aware that your victim status makes you automatically reject any ideas, even helpful ones. My thoughts:
Move to a different desk. I suggest a corner near the back of the room. Away from walkways and doorways. Try for visual quiet space above your desk. Organise this desk to your satisfaction, your own refuge of order.
Schedule your day for quiet times. Come in early, at least two hours or so before the bulk of colleagues. Eat early while the office is busy and you will have time over lunch when the office is quieter.
Use noise cancelling headphones to give yourself white noise.
Be friendly to your colleagues. If they like you the are more likely to accommodate your wishes.
If it is appropriate organise a working bee. Provide some snacks!
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/25
| 1,228
| 5,013
|
<issue_start>username_0: In many European countries, PhD salaries are incredibly low if compared with industry salaries. In my field, computer science, a young programmer can gain in one in one year what a PhD student gains during all the PhD. Which are the practical reasons of this?
Some possibilities:
* Money: university have not enough money to pay higher salaries to PhD students. I don't think this is the cause of the low PhD salaries, as given a budget for a project, the PhD students are hired in function of the budget.
* PhD is not considered a job. This, in my opinion, is wrong. PhD actually is a full time job, that requires skills that in many cases (for instance in computer science) will be highly paid in the industry. Projects faced during the PhD are often more complex than homologous industrial projects. The real fact is that a PhD student often (but not always) doesn't produce revenues; but this is true also for professors, for people who take care of the cleaning of the university, and for all the staff of a university, that receive a higher salary then PhDs.
* PhD students are the weakest group of the academia. Nobody, when salaries are decided, says "PhDs should gain more!", because, when salaries are decided, actually they don't have any voice.<issue_comment>username_1: They aren't that low. For example, here in Finland:
* a typical salary for a PhD student: 2400–3000 e/month
* a typical salary in the industry for someone who just got their MSc degree: 3500 e/month.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: PhD-students are students, advanced students but students none the less. It is a classic form of vocational education: learning on the job. It is a form of long practicum, and they get a stipent or a "wage" that fits that position. When they finish, they will get a diploma.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The disparity in pay in the computer science industry specifically, compared to PhD research, is because there is currently a **massive deficit** of experienced software developers in the computer science industry.
The higher industry salaries are designed to get qualified candidates and keep them there, to deliver on projects. No developer means no work means no money.
I would wager that PhD students do not play musical chairs. In the industry, turnover is a very real problem.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: PhD students are paid in more then just the money they get directly. They're also able to take highly technical classes, have direct access to some of the best minds in their field, get sent to international conferences, and gain free vocational research training. All of this is normally covered by their university.
You could argue that PhDs help produce research and that benefits their school. But learning how to do research is the entire point of the PhD and they benefit from publications as much as their university does, if not more.
The fact that you can get paid enough money to live comfortably on top of all of the these benefits is amazing and, the the best of my knowledge, not found anywhere else. How many places do you know who would pay you to sit around and train for 3-7 years knowing that you will leave as soon as you're decently competent?
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Mainly because it's not *just* a job. Although I do see it gaining recognition as one: we do produce a lot of an institution's research. You are still in training (even in postdocs), this isn't just hierarchy, it's degree-inflation.
A PhD is also an **Education**, an investment in your future, arguably increasing your future job prospects:
* work opportunities abroad (conference, postdocs)
* greater independence in your work than a less qualified job
* job security (e.g., tenure-track)
* potentially higher salary post-PhD (depending on job market)
Our stipend in comparably lower in Aus/NZ than EU but it usually also includes a tuition fees waiver. The contribution of international PhD students at our university is also recognised by only charging domestic fees during the first 3 years, even if they aren't eligible for a stipend.
Think of a PhD on a stipend like a job with lower pay but some perks: a huge emphasis on training, free education, conference opportunities, tax-free income.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: If we compare academia and industry, I think there is a keyword for the big salary differences, responsibility.
I once asked a PhD student, why he did not want to take a better paid industry job and he answered he had nightmares about firemen-work. Like his code would make a big mess in production and he had to clean up. It really depends on what kind of work day you want. A delayed research paper affects nobody but your self, but a bug in a code can delay a whole plant.
And as an MSc in industry, your work has a purpose to make higher values for the company so there is definitely more weights on the shoulders for an industry engineer compared to a PhD student.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/25
| 2,345
| 9,811
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a parent of disabled teenager. My career has been interrupted, as has my academic path. My son is in and out of hospital and school. But now I am doing a PhD at a top UK university and am winning awards for my projects and am devising and teaching courses. Only problem, I can't get funding. I keep missing out on Studentships as they go to people half my age with straight A academic results.
Well, this is what I am told.
I think this is discrimination. Someone with my background - even with a brilliant, original research project - is never ever going to get a studentship if the decisive criteria is your undergraduate and MA results.
Studentships are lucrative (16K a year in London) and people like me, in the, um, diversity and inclusion basket - are told to search through the Alternative Funding Guide and 'write lots of letters'. It would take a professional fundraiser a year at least to raise the same amount as a studentship!
Does anyone have any experience of seeking funding as a carer doing a PhD, or even some good practice from their institution to share? I'm in the UK so UK examples would be most helpful to me.
**Edit 9/22:**
My first years part time were funded by my part-time work in a related industry, but due to my teaching and PhD commitments, and Carer commitments, I haven't had time to seek more clients. So that's dried up. I also received a discretionary fund fee waiver for the fees - this wasn't an advertised hardship fund, this was a result of asking and asking until finally finding something was available. You are only supposed to apply to this once during your degree, but I have applied once again because there just is nothing else. Awaiting outcome.
I've had success with small funding for trips abroad to conferences and considerable success with funding for public engagement projects - but I can't pay my living costs or wages with that.
My supervisor thinks that my identity as a carer is something that we can't seem to escape from, so we it is something that will be addressed in my thesis (that's ok with me, and it sits nicely with my ambition to teach creative writing and to explore under-represented groups in film and tv).
I never intended to campaign on this issue, but since posting this question, I have been successful in getting the student union to take up the issue of Carers at our university as one of their priority vulnerable groups, and the first thing we will ask for is for Student Records to include Carers in the equality and diversity questions (not a statutory requirement for this data to be collected, but why not). Our university is behind others in offering support and recognition for carers. Secondly, within the graduate school, the student advisor I was talking to has recommended Carers be considered under the university's Widening Participation policy. And just the other day, I got to explain to the Vice Dean of the Faculty what a Carer is -- it's someone who looks after someone else who has a life limiting condition such as a disability or illness -- for more than 35 hours per week (that's the statuory number of hours in order to apply for Carer's Allowance, a means tested benefit).
So, no studentship yet but I have delegated my campaigning tendencies! I will keep this trail updated and hope others continue to contribute.<issue_comment>username_1: I don't know the system in the UK, so I am afraid I only have one suggestion, but I hope it will be helpful as a start.
Find allies. Networking is part of this but there's more to it than that. Places to look:
* disability rights organizations
* caregivers' support groups (I think in the UK the term is *carers*)
* returning students groups
* in case you are female: women's groups
* parents groups
I was a returning student at one time, and there was a group on campus that gave me key financial and moral support at a critical juncture.
One minor additional suggestion: My impression is that the concept of a returning student is more supported in the US than in the UK. So, if you can find some respite care for your teenager for a few days, attending a conference in your field in the US might give you a shot in the arm. Visiting a supportive environment can be remarkably helpful.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> But now I am doing a PhD at a top UK university and am winning awards for my projects and am devising and teaching courses.
>
>
>
In my experience, once you start a PhD in the UK, it is extremely difficult to get a studentship. It is not clear if you are looking for a full time studentship or a part time studentship. UK studentships tend to come from four sources of funding: university/school level funding, doctoral training center (DTC) grants, individual grants from charities and research councils given to a supervisor, and individual studentships awarded to the student.
As UK PhDs generally last 3 years of full time work, asking for less than 3 years of funding will result in odd gaps on any type of grant. While funding directly from the university or school is more flexible, unfortunately, if they did not offer you funding when they accepted you, they likely are not going to offer you funding now.
That leaves you with "special interest" funding, but again, having already started, will put you at a disadvantage.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: First of all, this is from a UK perspective but a different discipline (science).
You strongly imply in two areas that you think your academic record is affecting your success:
>
> Studentships [...] go to people [...] with straight A academic results.
>
>
>
and
>
> Someone with my background [...] is never ever going to get a
> studentship if the decisive criteria is your undergraduate and MA
> results.
>
>
>
It would be easier to tell if you provided some information about your academic track record (although of course you don't have to), but most sources of funding I'm aware of wouldn't directly select against applicants with caring responsibilities, so if your track record appears poor (which was in turn a consequence of your caring responsibilities) I suspect that is more likely to be the problem. Most sources of funding will be highly oversubscribed and may use grades/degree class as a screen before reading applications in detail, even though they shouldn't.
If this is the case, then references and letters of support from previous supervisors or lecturers that draw attention to your circumstances may be the most effective way to get funders to consider this, rather than attempting to argue your own case. Also make sure you have a strong reference from your current supervisor. (I'm assuming you had similar caring responsibilities during your A-levels, undergrad and MSc as well, by the way; if you can point to a change in your achievements when these began that might also strengthen your case.)
Lastly, even if the funders accept that your caring responsibilities affected your previous results, they will want to be confident that you will attain a high level of performance in your doctorate. It sounds like you are already doing well so you can just point at your recent track record, but mention any change in your circumstances since the previous degrees (if the amount of care required has reduced, or if you are receiving additional external support) that will improve your ability to focus on academic performance.
**Sources of funding**: One other part of the problem may be the bodies you're applying to; as @username_2 notes, many will only fund students starting a doctorate, rather than partway through. There is some useful information on ways to fund a doctorate [here](https://www.exeter.ac.uk/postgraduate/money/phdfunding/) and a list of some charities that fund doctorates [here](https://www.exeter.ac.uk/postgraduate/money/alternativefunding/charities/). Finally, it may be too late to help you but from 2018 the government will offer £25k loans for doctorates ([link](http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/article/phd-loans-of-25k-on-offer-from-2018-19-296.aspx)).
**Finally - what does your supervisor say?** Supervisors are there to help with all aspects of study and will understand your individual situation better.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Hopefully information brought to light in this thread will help the next Carer applying for studentships.
Apparently it is key to get the carer role situation documented in the support letters from the start. I know I am disadvantaged by having already started, but it's not unheard of to get funding mid-doctorate.
I have applied for a second discretionary fund fee waiver for the fees - this wasn't an advertised hardship fund, this was a result of asking and asking until finally finding something was available. You are only supposed to apply to this once during your degree, but I have applied once again because there just is nothing else. Awaiting outcome.
I've had success with small funding for trips abroad to conferences and considerable success with funding for public engagement projects (although I can't pay my living costs or wages with that).
The following action steps look promising for helping with this general problem, in the long term:
* get the student union to take up the issue of carers
* ask that Student Records include carers in the equality and diversity questions
* recommend carers be considered under the university's Widening Participation policy
* explain to the Vice Dean of the Faculty what a carer is: a person who looks after someone who has a life limiting condition such as a disability or illness for more than 35 number of hours per week (that's the statutory number of hours needed to apply for Carer's Allowance, a means-tested benefit).
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/25
| 877
| 3,569
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm writing a journal article that involves many comparisons within and across groups. Visually, these comparisons are quite easily understood. However, describing them in text requires the use of long sentences with several acronyms and numerous references back to sub-parts of the figures.
In general is it acceptable in academic writing to simply say a couple of high-level sentences (and maybe point out some nuance that a reader might miss) about a complex figure and allow the reader to absorb the bulk of the information by viewing the figure?<issue_comment>username_1: It is evidently true that figures/images can convey things difficult to convey in words (e.g., see Edward Tufte's *[The Visual Display of Quantitative Information](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0961392142)*).
On the other hand, the exercise of verbally *approximating* what may be visually apparent is in itself highly informative in various ways. Among others, your verbal approximation of the visual will partly explain to your readers *your* *own* interpretation of it, to which they can add or contrast their own. Or, they might otherwise fail to see in it what you see.
That is, with regard to the latter point, it is often good to "state the obvious", because the notion of "obvious" turns out to be subjective.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Depends a bit on your field.
But, in general, I'd wager that it is a good idea to guide the reader through the image, towards the information you want to convey with the image. Not only by explaining, but also by annotating the image, exactly to ease such explanations. It is easier to reference/identify "the region denoted by (a)" than "the third peak from the left", for instance.
update (to clear editing confusion): What I said applies not only to the text that cites the image, but to the caption, and the image itself. Whenever you can make the image "tell a story", with a clear sequence of points of interest (guiding the reader through the image), it should improve the understanding of what you are trying to show.
An example of this idea:
<https://www.computer.org/csdl/trans/tg/preprint/07192717.pdf>
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The point is to be as clear to the reader as possible, yet as succinct as possible, especially when there are limits to the number of pages or words or figures you are allowed to use in the paper. In general, however, it is not a bad idea to repeat the same idea both in figure and text. Bear in mind that many of your readers may not be familiar with the specialised subject of your paper. Also the journal might have some guidelines on the matter.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: It is possible to define a diagrammatic terminology and then use it, as long as the translation is deterministic and unambiguous. See for example how the proofs on pages 14, 19, etc. are done in [this reference](http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1023).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I was told that article shall be written in the way that all readers, listed below, won't lose the take-home message I want to give. There are ones that:
* read abstract only (they who are behind paywall);
* read abstract, conclusions and introduction only;
* read text only;
* read figures and their captions only.
On the other hand, the figures are supporting the claims you are writing in the body; you don't need to describe the figures fully but you should write what the reader is supposed to see in it - even if it may seem dumb or overkill to you.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/26
| 1,108
| 4,737
|
<issue_start>username_0: In recent years there has been much talk of difficulties in the academic job market, and of many PhDs transitioning out of academia into the private sector. From what I've observed, it seems that those PhDs that did get private jobs experienced pay and hours much better than what they would have gotten as academic post-docs. Of course, academic freedom, and opportunity to publish or teach are often not as good, but those are somewhat subjective factors.
However most PhD programs aren't really suited to this sort of thing. They are designed (sometimes explicitly) for producing future professors. There is emphasis on teaching, academic research (ie. stuff that you can publish and bring in the cites), writing grants (to agencies like the NSF), and all sorts of academic-y things. These skills don't really seem like they would sound very attractive to a private sector employer, who I assume have, contrary to academia, some regard for making money and less for things I've listed.
Of course there are two main things the PhD has that a company concerned with profit rather than publications would want:
* Specialized domain knowledge
* General reasoning and analytical skills
Everything else you could get from non-PhDs cheaper. These, luckily, *are* things that PhD is designed to teach anyhow. However, there are often many soft skills I see in job ads, which seem relevant, like:
* Computer skills
* Proficiency with programming languages
* Experience with frameworks and libraries of commercial use (.NET, phone apps, web administration, ecommerce)
* "Works well with others"
* "Good communicator"
* "Can assume leadership role"
* "Can supervise team of junior workers on project"
These are things that, if you want to learn while doing a PhD, sometimes you need to go out of your way to do so. And even if you acquire a skill, how do you convince the employer that you actually have it, as opposed to just saying you do?
So suppose you were a PhD student, but your goal upon graduation was not to start at a postdoc and aim for a college professorship, but do get a job in the private sector. This can be an industrial R&D job very similar to your PhD research, or it can be a supervisory role in an area related to your expertise (eg. fish biologist works at fishery), or it can be unrelated except for using the same skills (eg. physicist working in finance). What would you do differently during your PhD from your faculty-bound peers?
Does it make sense to sort of "flavor" your PhD work with things relevant to the private sector, so you can go into your job search having developed these tangential skills more than the average PhD would? Or is it better to just focus on research, and hope that employers will appreciate your academic success, and see your potential if you applied yourself to their business instead?
Someone will inevitably ask for what field, let's say biomedical -> biotech, software development, finance or healthcare. However, I encourage you to answer in a general way, that would apply to many disciplines; I think such an answer would be more useful.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, the optimal thing for a PhD student aiming for the private sector is to quit the PhD as soon as he or she can get a relevant job. There are exceptions if the private sector job involves actual research, and some private sector jobs require the specialized knowledge of an MS or MA degree.
Beyond the basics and the necessary theoretical knowledge, the soft skills and the relevant technical skills are much more easily picked up while working in industry, since you get daily practice in the specifically relevant skills. In addition, one generally gets paid much better in the private sector than as a PhD student.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My opinion is that this is defintly possible! I work at a institute (ntnu.edu/ipk) that is very much connected to the industry. There are different course groups, but some groups have as much as 3-4 case companies for each phd student. Thats means that the student is actually doing a lot of research on the company.
I think if you want to wprk in the industry, you should go for a phd program where they plan to cooperatw with companies. This is either clear in the phd description or the supervisors should know something about this.
You could also talk extra to supervisors that have strong industry contacts. My exoerience is that its big differences about how much professors and groups focus to cooperate with industry.
Anyway, research with a company is mandatory in a phd if you really want to work in the industry later. Maybe thats also what you need to motivate yourself through your phd.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/26
| 838
| 3,693
|
<issue_start>username_0: If an academic researcher wants to ask research related question or to start a collaboration etc. with another academic researcher, it is usually a matter of a polite and specific email. I have seem such initiatives from academic researchers towards industrial researchers (e.g., a postdoc asking about technicalities of a paper written by a Google researcher directly to the Google researcher).
Is such research correspondence, without any prior research contracts/agreements between the academic institution and industrial researcher's company, also common from the other way around (i.e., an industrial researcher initiating a correspondence to an academic researcher)?
How about research correspondence between researchers in two different companies?
I am thinking of transiting to industrial research from academia and genuinely curious about this.<issue_comment>username_1: Disclosure: I am a researcher working in industry.
I think that the rule of thumb is: make it as simple as is wise, but not simpler (paraphrasing Einstein).
Always make it clear who you are (name, company, etc), and what your intent is (e.g., better understanding of a paper, creating your own implementation of an algorithm in a scientific publication for research purposes only, developing a new product based on a scientific publication, writing a patent, etc).
Be open and honest (e.g., do not claim that you just want to understand something, when in reality you want to use it in the development of a product).
If you are asking about quite generic technicalities (e.g., something you might also publicly ask to a speaker in a conference), you might just drop an email and ask. As long as you do not disclose any confidential information, and you do not expect so from the researcher, you just can ask the question.
When you do need to disclose confidential information (e.g., specifics about a product your company is developing), you will need to sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement).
Also be aware that if you are asking the academic researcher to do work for you beyond just answering an email, or provide you with something of value (e.g., working code belonging to a scientific publication) a monetary reimbursement is in place.
For the latter two items it is quite likely that you will need to involve other people within your company (the legal department, a budget holder, your boss, ...) before reaching out.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I don't think there is that much difference between academia and industry except that in industry you probably have to clear it with your boss and/or IP lawyers before you mail ideas out of the company. I have received "cold" contact emails from industry, sure, not that many I've been able to act on though. I think the problems are pretty much the same: how much time does someone have, do they even read their email or not, etc. You will get lots of variation both inside and outside of academia on this. If you have enough money to pay for a PhD student for at least a year, then you will probably have not too much trouble getting someone's attention in academia wherever you are coming from, if you've done enough work to be sure you're approaching the right person / someone actively researching the area you need.
The other easy way to get an academic to collaborate with industry is to hire them as a consultant. But again, it has to really be their area, and they have to have time available, so you need to do research. But if you get the wrong person, they may be able to suggest someone else or at least something to read (if the problem's already solved so no longer of academic interest.)
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/26
| 612
| 2,448
|
<issue_start>username_0: My wife and I are both PhD candidate in major-but-not-elite French universities. We study in completely different fields.
She got a visiting student position in the US for 1 semester as of January 2017. I would also like to go to the US as visiting student, at the same time, for both personal (i.e. not being one ocean away from her during 6 months) and professional reasons (i.e. experiencing the anglo-saxon scientific research paradigm, international experience, etc.).
**Question:** When contacting Professors of local universities, should I mention that my wife will be in the US at the same time, or not?
In other words, would P.I.s be more prone to accept me as visiting student (I'm financially autonomous, so I'm *not* asking for a funding) if they know my wife will be there (because of empathy or whatever), or would they tend to consider that I apply because of my wife, and not because of the research -- so that I'm not motivated enough?
---
**Edit:** As given answers made me figure out, a motive of my question is that *there is no research team in the US that study my particular sub-field*. So the question "why are you asking for a position in our lab, since this other lab in the UK is closer of your research topic?" might be raised.<issue_comment>username_1: Be honest. Present it as a happy coincidence. That's what it is, after all. For example,
>
> I've always been interested in different research communities and paradigms, given how this knowledge can help me to work more effectively with others and to introspect my own methodology. My wife has been offered a place in [state] also, so this is a ideal opportunity in my academic career to gain the experience I've sought.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: I don't think professors would be more likely to accept you out of empathy if you're expecting them to fund you.
On the other hand, there might be a question of how serious you are about wanting to go for research purposes, particularly if your work is not very close to theirs. But if your work is not so close, they probably wouldn't accept you anyway.
So I don't think it makes much difference, but just to keep things brief and straightforward, I might omit mention of your wife in your initial email. (Actually, if you don't know these professors but your advisor does, it's probably better if your advisor contacts them first.)
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/26
| 1,551
| 6,740
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have two papers published in a APS journal and another paper just got accepted to the same journal (the journal is a reputed one in my field). It has been almost two years for my PhD. So I have started drafting my next research outcome. My plan was to try another journal this time. However, my supervisor is suggesting me to submit to the same journal. If in case this journal's reputation goes down (however, this is very unlikely), all my work kinda get wasted. On the otherhand, is it good to have all PhD papers in one journal (It might look like I cannot reach scopes of other journals)? Thanks in advance.<issue_comment>username_1: Welcome to <EMAIL>, @QuantumGirl. It might differ (slightly) between fields, but in general, I'd say it is *not* good. Journals have different readerships, and you want to reach different audiences. Next to that, you want to avoid the impression that you are a one-trick-pony with research that is so narrow that it is only publishable in one specific journal (again, not knowing the specific circumstances in your field of course). But in general, a bit of diversification to me sounds a much better strategy, even if it is a good journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For the PhD itself it probably doesn't matter a lot, but if you are looking for a further research career, I'd advise diversifying a bit. It has the following advantages:
* Other people may have another "favorite" journal, and if you have published in multiple journals, you increase the chances of people thinking "wow, she published in xyz!".
* You will get a broader readership and generally more visibility if you publish in different journals.
* There is some risk that people may see your research as too narrow if you only publish it in one single journal.
Maybe you can try adjusting the framing of your research problem a bit, so that another journal will become a better fit for it, and then try to convince your supervisor by comparing the scopes of journals and arguing why this paper fits better to the other journal.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Sometimes researchers have some sort of personal connections at the journal editorial offices. For most of the time such connections are good as they facilitate publication. To me its most likely the reason your supervisor insisted so.
Of course, it saves the time of acquainting yourself to the publication requirements of other journals and, if you are working consistently on a specific field, it helps to grow your readership.
So, if the paper fits the theme of the journal (and most importantly, the academic value of the paper and the IF of the journal is not a mismatch), I don's see there's any strong reason to change. The reputation thing sounds like a rare situation, I personally don't think it worth so much consideration.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If the journal you mean is Cell/Nature/Science, then... well, god does exist in the world, may I have your signature please?
Otherwise, it is not very important. For most people it is more like "publish the paper to the best journal that accepts it" rather than "I decide where I publish my paper".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think it will affect the perceived quality of your work if the reputation of the journal declines. However unlikely to occur, it also wouldn't matter, Impact Factors are usually calculated based on the last 3-5 years and can be tracked over time. IF is a crude measure of quality and not many researchers judge an article or journal's quality solely on them. If it's a well-known journal in your field, the research community won't forget it's reputation (at the time you submitted) overnight. By that time your work should stand on it's own anyway, having lead to citations, grants, or further positions in the time being.
I'd be more concerned with the audience you want your work to reach and what you're co-authors can agree on. As my research is interdisciplinary (Bioinformatics), I'd aim at a range of journals for works more related to each field, reaching an audience that may appreciate it, cite in in future works, or use my supporting data and software packages. This has the added benefit of showing my range of skills to an employer just as I would support them with conference participation, teaching experience, or acquiring grants.
This may not be the best approach for everyone, it depends what you are doing and wish to in the future. Generally, you want to publish in field(s) where you wish to work in the future, where-ever that may be. The plus-side is that journals tend to encourage loyalty and will view your next paper as more suitable to their journal if it follows on from or cites existing work in their journal. This would reduce the workload to write for a new audience or defend more thorough review so you can focus on your thesis. However, I'd be cautious of doing this long-term at the expense of publishing opportunities in other journals. It's not common practice to exclusively submit to one journal for the bulk of your career.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Most people would base their decision on:
1. The relative **rating or impact factor** of the journal compared with others relevant to the same field; and
2. The **relevance** of your material to what the journal typically publishes and their audience.
The **citations you are likely to get** will be influenced by both the profile of the journal and the relevance of the material to its readership.
Its therefore perfectly feasible (and sensible) to publish material in a 'lower ranked' journal if the research you are looking to publish **has greater relevance** for that audience.
BUT - if the research in question is genuinely only a **1-shot-at-goal** only situation when it comes to publication - then you would usually be inclined to go for the highest rated journal that you can as these outlets can be very selective.
Be aware however that, for better or worse, most academics will now '**salami slice**' the output from their research, or different aspects of it, for different outlets. This is not always a bad thing (and may not actually constitute 'salami slicing'). For example, a paper emphasising theoretical or methodological aspects to the research may go to a different outlet to one that is more applied or gives greater emphasis to context, findings or implications in practice.
This final point does however flag that if you are only ever publishing in one journal it does convey a relatively narrow focus in terms of **how you convey the relevance of your research** and **your willingness to engage a broader audience**.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/26
| 1,639
| 7,152
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm in the middle of my PhD and published 2 conference papers only with my supervisor, But i always want to have collaborations with other academic people in the field. Unfortunately i am a bit confused there!
* I met people in conferences who were working on similar problems in the area, but i do not know how to initiate/request for collaboration? especially with a professor or a high level researcher.
* Sometime when i read a paper related to my work, an idea for improvement of the proposed approach comes to my mind. But i put it somewhere in the shelf to get back to it later. But i'm not sure if it is a good idea to share it with the author or keep it to myself and work on it alone? In case of the first, should i contact the student author or the professor?
* BTW, my field is computer science and i deal with machine learning and data analysis! so the most probable scenario which comes to my mind is getting some specific data from someone and working on that, but then it wouldn't be considered collaboration!<issue_comment>username_1: Welcome to academia@stackexchange, @QuantumGirl. It might differ (slightly) between fields, but in general, I'd say it is *not* good. Journals have different readerships, and you want to reach different audiences. Next to that, you want to avoid the impression that you are a one-trick-pony with research that is so narrow that it is only publishable in one specific journal (again, not knowing the specific circumstances in your field of course). But in general, a bit of diversification to me sounds a much better strategy, even if it is a good journal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: For the PhD itself it probably doesn't matter a lot, but if you are looking for a further research career, I'd advise diversifying a bit. It has the following advantages:
* Other people may have another "favorite" journal, and if you have published in multiple journals, you increase the chances of people thinking "wow, she published in xyz!".
* You will get a broader readership and generally more visibility if you publish in different journals.
* There is some risk that people may see your research as too narrow if you only publish it in one single journal.
Maybe you can try adjusting the framing of your research problem a bit, so that another journal will become a better fit for it, and then try to convince your supervisor by comparing the scopes of journals and arguing why this paper fits better to the other journal.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Sometimes researchers have some sort of personal connections at the journal editorial offices. For most of the time such connections are good as they facilitate publication. To me its most likely the reason your supervisor insisted so.
Of course, it saves the time of acquainting yourself to the publication requirements of other journals and, if you are working consistently on a specific field, it helps to grow your readership.
So, if the paper fits the theme of the journal (and most importantly, the academic value of the paper and the IF of the journal is not a mismatch), I don's see there's any strong reason to change. The reputation thing sounds like a rare situation, I personally don't think it worth so much consideration.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If the journal you mean is Cell/Nature/Science, then... well, god does exist in the world, may I have your signature please?
Otherwise, it is not very important. For most people it is more like "publish the paper to the best journal that accepts it" rather than "I decide where I publish my paper".
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: I don't think it will affect the perceived quality of your work if the reputation of the journal declines. However unlikely to occur, it also wouldn't matter, Impact Factors are usually calculated based on the last 3-5 years and can be tracked over time. IF is a crude measure of quality and not many researchers judge an article or journal's quality solely on them. If it's a well-known journal in your field, the research community won't forget it's reputation (at the time you submitted) overnight. By that time your work should stand on it's own anyway, having lead to citations, grants, or further positions in the time being.
I'd be more concerned with the audience you want your work to reach and what you're co-authors can agree on. As my research is interdisciplinary (Bioinformatics), I'd aim at a range of journals for works more related to each field, reaching an audience that may appreciate it, cite in in future works, or use my supporting data and software packages. This has the added benefit of showing my range of skills to an employer just as I would support them with conference participation, teaching experience, or acquiring grants.
This may not be the best approach for everyone, it depends what you are doing and wish to in the future. Generally, you want to publish in field(s) where you wish to work in the future, where-ever that may be. The plus-side is that journals tend to encourage loyalty and will view your next paper as more suitable to their journal if it follows on from or cites existing work in their journal. This would reduce the workload to write for a new audience or defend more thorough review so you can focus on your thesis. However, I'd be cautious of doing this long-term at the expense of publishing opportunities in other journals. It's not common practice to exclusively submit to one journal for the bulk of your career.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: Most people would base their decision on:
1. The relative **rating or impact factor** of the journal compared with others relevant to the same field; and
2. The **relevance** of your material to what the journal typically publishes and their audience.
The **citations you are likely to get** will be influenced by both the profile of the journal and the relevance of the material to its readership.
Its therefore perfectly feasible (and sensible) to publish material in a 'lower ranked' journal if the research you are looking to publish **has greater relevance** for that audience.
BUT - if the research in question is genuinely only a **1-shot-at-goal** only situation when it comes to publication - then you would usually be inclined to go for the highest rated journal that you can as these outlets can be very selective.
Be aware however that, for better or worse, most academics will now '**salami slice**' the output from their research, or different aspects of it, for different outlets. This is not always a bad thing (and may not actually constitute 'salami slicing'). For example, a paper emphasising theoretical or methodological aspects to the research may go to a different outlet to one that is more applied or gives greater emphasis to context, findings or implications in practice.
This final point does however flag that if you are only ever publishing in one journal it does convey a relatively narrow focus in terms of **how you convey the relevance of your research** and **your willingness to engage a broader audience**.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/26
| 512
| 2,286
|
<issue_start>username_0: Some months ago I was contacted by a friend who works in my scientific field, regarding a **collaboration project** (we're both postdocs). We exchanged some emails and considerations. He provided me the dataset, and I developed a simple program able to make some interesting scientific discoveries (at least, from my understanding).
We've not given too much importance to this project, but now it turns out that it could lead to a scientific **paper** to submit to a good journal.
Even if I dedicated to this side project a small amount of time (~3 hours / week), it surely took away some time from my main project, which is much more important.
Now in the writing phase, I wondering if I should tell my supervisor about this project and this paper.
On one hand, I'm worried that he might not like that I dedicated some working time to it instead of my main project... on the other side, I think he would be happy to collaborate in writing this paper with me and gain a new journal publication.
**What do you think I should do?**
**What do you think my supervisor would say about this side project and its paper?**<issue_comment>username_1: I recommend that you should talk with the supervisor about side projects. Perhaps revealing the nature of a project at once is not a good idea if the relation with the supervisor is not so close. You can start for example telling your supervisor that you are/will be collaborating with a friend on a project and see the reaction and the comments, and after a few weeks you can expose the whole project and paper to the supervisor. I don't think you have invested such a long time in your project, 3h/week is a small amount of time, so you didn't took much effort from your principal project, you have nothing to worry about.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Just because you are doing a main project does not mean you cannot work on anything else. You are not a slave! You have every right to work on it with your friend. Many professors wont understand it. My masters professor did and loved it. If your relationship with your professor is new then mention about your project in passing and look for his reaction. If he is curious, let out the cat. Else kill the pigeon and work on it by yourself!
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/26
| 431
| 1,843
|
<issue_start>username_0: For context, i'll describe the problem. I'm working in chromatography, and the first part of the work was to do TLC experiments to narrow mobile phase compositions for separation of valuable components of plant extracts through column chromatography. In these experiments, we found that there were impurities that could not be moved by ANY type of mobile phase. We tried several procedures, but none were effective, we just abandoned this problem because something else became evident.
I'm now writing the description of the events in my thesis, and I have a whole subsection with a structure of "we tried this, here is a picture, you can see it did not work", repeated something like 5 or 6 times. Those SHOULD have worked, but they didn't. Imagine having a car in which the engine chugs and does not start, you replace the whole engine, and then the car continues to not start.
I am therefore stuck in a situation in which I can only describe an additional two procedures as "throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks". I am however pretty sure you can't actually write that on a thesis. How should I express this?<issue_comment>username_1: It would be best to explain why such experiments were conducted along with supporting concepts that you would like to verify. It ought not to look like a random set of trials.
You may write something like this:
>
> *Concept X* follows from *[explanation of X]*. This *concept* formed the hypothesis *Y* to justify the following experiments. ... Although the experimental results were negative, it would be of worth to note them here as to why they were so.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: In my field we call it "trial-and-error" approach. It's not the best thing to do from a scientific point of view, but some times it's just faster.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/26
| 908
| 4,114
|
<issue_start>username_0: Many studies are mainly revolved around solving optimization problems; formulating a cost function and getting the gradient w.r.t some elements. This part can be somewhat challenging mathematically and is required to solve the problem in practice. Or at least, it used to be. I note that I'm not talking about the research of optimization but rather using optimization as a tool.
Symbolic toolboxes (such as Theano, TensorFlow, etc., mainly used when designing neural networks) are abundant and widely used. Using these, we can skip the manual calculation of gradients - we write only the cost function, and the derivation is done for us. Usually even the optimization is performed automatically.
While in the computer vision field it is very common to find studies that skip the math almost entirely, in other fields it is still very common to write the cost function, and at least provide the final equations needed for reproducing the results (more elaborate calculations are usually found in the appendix or supplementary material).
I'm wondering - if I choose to use these symbolic toolboxes in another field, in which it's common to write the entire derivation (or at least the gist of it), will it be frowned upon, even if I specify which software I use and even provide code? I somehow feel as if some fields consider themselves to be more 'mathematical' in substance and will therefore want to see I can calculate myself rather than let a computer do that for me...
Thanks.<issue_comment>username_1: It's always been normal not to write out long but straightforward calculations in a scientific paper. If there are certain intermediate steps in the calculation that are of interest for their own sake, show them.
>
> will it be frowned upon, even if I specify which software I use and even provide code?
>
>
>
If the calculation is something that can be straightforwardly (but tediously) verified by anyone with knowledge of the field, then I don't see any point in saying what software you used or supplying source code. The reason to give this type of information would be if there was something in the software that could be nontrivial, controversial, etc., so that other people with knowledge of the state of the art might not get the same answer you did.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Do not write out the long boring calculation in a middle of an exposition devoted to a different idea. That makes reading harder. But do present the calculations somehow, e.g., delegate them to a separate section/appendix/supplementary material. Extremely often I found that calculations that I find trivial aren't for others, and sometimes that is because they are wrong.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: The way I use such software is that it is easier to derive the result manually if you know what the outcome is. In addition I only treat it as an intermediate answer. I usually need to spent quite some time staring and rearanging the result such that it makes sense to a human. This "post-processing" tends to improve the paper a lot: you move from a black box to something intuitive, and possible special cases and limitations tend to naturally folow from such a discussion.
So I consider those very useful tools, but I check every result and every result needs considerable "post-processing" by hand.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: I am in a very different field as yours - Computational Fluid Dynamics - but the use of external software in simulations is common. In general, a mention of the software and a reference to its documentation or source code if available is given. Providing the mathematical procedure is not necessary since you did not develop it yourself.
**The access to a given article and the attached references, and not the article alone as mentioned by others, should enable the reader to reproduce the results.**
This is how it usually is presented::
>
> The computation of the *cost Function* was done using the *Tensor Flow* toolkit. The reader is referred to [ref] for more details.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/26
| 1,144
| 4,250
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm doing research in two different subfields, one of which usually orders names alphabetically and one of which usually orders by contribution. My last name starts with Z, so I'll always be last author in the former field. Both fields are close enough to the divide that it's not clear to an outsider which convention they would use.
How can I point this out in my CV? I can see three options:
* Don't do anything, and just be last author on half of the papers.
* Write "the author listings in items 2, 4, and 7 are alphabetical", which feels tacky.
* Write "the author listings in papers in this subfield are alphabetical", which also feels tacky.
Is there anything else I could do? Should I be worrying about this at all?<issue_comment>username_1: If this is for a job search/promotion: one way around it is to find yourself a champion to explain the situation for you, and leave it out of the CV. Your champion could be a (senior) collaborator who is writing a recommendation letter for you, or in the case of a tenure promotion, your department chair.
You can ask them to include a line when describing your most significant works explaining the conventions, something like:
>
> In article [3] which I worked on together with Dr Zhou, he made the important contribution .... (footnote: conventionally the journal in which the research was published list authors alphabetically and not by contribution).
>
>
>
If it is not for a job search/promotion: I don't see why random reader of you CV would care.
---
Incidentally: I am quite surprised to hear the particle phenomenology orders by contribution; it is close enough to theoretical HEP that I would've thought the opposite (most articles on arXiv/hep-ph are listed alphabetically).
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest adding a remark like the following to your list of publications in your CV.
>
> I publish in multiple fields, with different standards for ordering authors, some ordering by contribution and others ordering alphabetically. In the list below, first authors are indicated in bold when authors are ordered by contribution; the symbol = indicates a paper with alphabetically-ordered authors.
>
>
> [1] **<NAME>** and <NAME>. This is a chemistry paper. *Science*, 2014.
>
>
> =[2] <NAME> and <NAME>. This is a mathematics paper. *Annals of Mathematics*, 2016.
>
>
> [3] **<NAME>** and 4278 others. Higgs bosons are made of cheese. *Nature* 2020.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: If you are the corresponding author of an article in which the author list are ordered alphabetically, it would be advisable to do the following:
Assume the name *Zeta*
In the paper:
>
> Alphonse, Betty, Charlie, ... Zeta\*
>
>
>
Add in footnote/address field (depending on the paper format),
>
> \*Corresponding author
>
>
>
In the CV, include two subdivision in the publication section:
>
> Articles with authors ordered by contribution:
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Articles with authors alphabetically ordered:
>
>
> * Alphonse, Betty, Charlie, ... Zeta\*
> * Aalan, Banners, Conor\*, ... Zeta
> * Dan, Ein, Ferry, Zeta\*
> * ...
>
>
> \*Corresponding author
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: The concern here is that someone reading your CV may think that you have never had the lead role in a research project that led to publication. This is something that should be addressed in your recommendation letters. Your recommenders can say
>
> "Dr. X spearheaded project Y and made the most significant contributions; of course she is listed as last author because in field Z we always order authors alphabetically."
>
>
>
It doesn't sound tacky coming from the recommender, whereas (as you correctly believe) it would coming from you. **You should speak with your recommender(s) in field Z and make sure they raise this point in their letters. They can also make comments regarding your independence and leadership as a researcher in general.**
You can also address this indirectly in your research statement, by referring to some of the papers where you are last author and describing the magnitude of your contributions to them.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/26
| 1,081
| 4,718
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have chosen to work under a associate professor as my PhD advisor. He has a small research group -a group of 3 graduate students and some Undergraduates. I see colleagues of my advisor have groups of 10-12 students with 3 postdocs.
Am I missing something- research wise ??<issue_comment>username_1: The individuals involved are more important than the size of the group. Different faculty have different management styles.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: It is probably because your supervisor is an associate professor and he has just started expanding his research group. As per my knowledge when professors are in this stage, they engage in more research activities to develop their career. And also they get enough time to spend for their students. I think there is no reason to worry. Probably it is for the best.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: This will of course vary between advisors and research groups, but I can discuss the differences I’ve seen in general between large and small labs. There are some differences which will be an advantage or disadvantage based on your personal preferences/working style, and others that can have a direct impact on research.
As a PhD student I was a part of a large academic lab, where we had approximately 20 people including Masters, PhDs, and post-docs plus an additional array of more temporary undergrads. As a large group, we had a variety of projects ongoing, with some involving small teams working on the same or similar topic. Being in a small team suited me, personally, quite well. The multiple ongoing research directions allowed me to also expand my knowledge base through informal discussions and during lab meetings, in addition to providing easy opportunities for collaborative research in smaller side projects through my degree. Older/more advanced students and post-docs were also a font of knowledge and advice for my own research problems. As a large group, we had a good amount of resources, monetary and otherwise, which was a definite bonus.
However, as a manager of a large lab, my advisor had little time for much personal attention or anything besides general direction. As such, it was much more difficult finding my research ‘footing’. After the first few difficult years, though, I flourished with the relative research freedom. From discussions with friends in much smaller labs, the involvement of their advisors was much higher and ranged from, in the beginning, weekly specialized task lists, to working side-by-side in the lab.
Once again, this will be heavily dependent on the people involved, but it is difficult to expect the same amount of interaction from an advisor who must split their attention n times more ways. I know a few who had co-advisors (where one was more established, one newer) to balance the issues I discussed (particularly the lack of funding/resources with the latter), but each option has their own advantages and disadvantages. Being co-advised is definitely no exception; getting them to agree to go in the same research direction can be simultaneously frustrating and terrifying.
With a small lab you may indeed be missing something research-wise, but your training in the ability to do research and your knowledge in your particular subject may benefit.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: >
> I have chosen to work under a assosciate professor as my PhD advisor.
> He has a small research group -a group of 3 graduate students and some
> Undergraduates. I see colleagues of my advisor have groups of 10-12
> students with 3 postdocs. Am I missing something- research wise ??
>
>
>
I've worked in a number of different sized research groups, from the very small (PI, me, and another student working on a different project) to a very large group (dozen or so faculty members, legions of graduate students, handful of postdocs).
The answer is no, you're not necessarily "missing something". What you're getting is a different sort of something. A large group can do some things a smaller group can't - things that require just a massive input of raw man-hours. They likely have more publications coming out in aggregate, etc. These are all really cool things.
On the other hand, small groups have less inertia. It's probably easier for a small group to "pivot" to pursue something new and interesting. And it's easier for something to be "yours" - for large groups, with each graduate student making up a component part, it's somewhat harder to boost the visibility of each individual.
There are plusses and minuses to each, but they're very much just different styles of working. Good science can, and has, been done under each model.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/26
| 677
| 2,947
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am putting together an application for an academic position that has been advertised as either level D or E at an Australian university (equivalent to full professor or chair professor in the US). The selection criteria are slightly different, depending on the level at which I apply, and I need to specify which level I am applying for in my application. I would happily accept the role if offered at level D, but would also be a credible candidate at level E.
My publication record and h-index are comfortably on par with existing level E professors in the department, my grants and funding record is good, and I would also bring the industry experience and leadership skills that they are looking for. On the other hand, I am not a shoe-in for the role, even at level D: my research interests are only just within scope for the department and I have limited teaching experience. It's a ("Group of Eight") research-focused university, so teaching is likely to be secondary to research, but it is still a factor.
I am guessing that they would not consider me at level D if I apply at level E, or vice-versa. Australia has less of a culture of salary negotiation than the US. I have thought about addressing both sets of selection criteria and leaving it up to them, but worry that might simply be annoying.
What is your advice?<issue_comment>username_1: The level is mostly about your salary floor. It sounds like level D is sufficient money to satisfy you. I don't see why you would increase your risk by applying for level E.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is my understanding that when a position is advertised so broadly, i.e. D or E, they are likely looking for someone really big. That being said, I think they are likely looking for someone at the level E, but would consider a strong candidate at level D.
If it were me, I would evaluate my qualifications and fit with both D and E positions honestly, and then put all my effort into whichever feels like the best fit.
If the only motivation to try for E is salary, and you probably fit better for D, then you are likely risking both.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You should be very careful in deciding whether you would be happy at the lower level. Australian academic levels are quite distinct, and transitioning to a higher level is not a simple case of applying for a promotion: you essentially need to have your role re-graded, and the process can take 2 years.
There are typically very few full professors (grade E) in a School or Department, and it is a big deal when a new position is offered at a Go8 university. Expect a lot of competition from people with international reputations in the field. Often potential candidates are approached by representatives of the university, so if you are considering an advertised position be aware that you may well be an outsider to done prime contenders.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/27
| 575
| 2,531
|
<issue_start>username_0: A little background... I attended a community college for 2 years, then transferred to Northwestern University where I studied mathematics. After spending seven years in the workforce, I am now planning to apply to graduate programs to study machine learning, and am looking back to see who I could ask for letters of recommendation.
During my years at Northwestern I lacked the foresight to forge any kind of relationships with my professors. However, while at the community college I made a strong connection with one of my math professors - in fact, taking the calculus course with him was the reason I decided to major in mathematics. I believe the community college professor would write me a strong, personalized letter of recommendation.
Which would I be better off with - an average letter of recommendation from one of my professors from Northwestern, or a strong letter from my community college professor?<issue_comment>username_1: The level is mostly about your salary floor. It sounds like level D is sufficient money to satisfy you. I don't see why you would increase your risk by applying for level E.
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: It is my understanding that when a position is advertised so broadly, i.e. D or E, they are likely looking for someone really big. That being said, I think they are likely looking for someone at the level E, but would consider a strong candidate at level D.
If it were me, I would evaluate my qualifications and fit with both D and E positions honestly, and then put all my effort into whichever feels like the best fit.
If the only motivation to try for E is salary, and you probably fit better for D, then you are likely risking both.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: You should be very careful in deciding whether you would be happy at the lower level. Australian academic levels are quite distinct, and transitioning to a higher level is not a simple case of applying for a promotion: you essentially need to have your role re-graded, and the process can take 2 years.
There are typically very few full professors (grade E) in a School or Department, and it is a big deal when a new position is offered at a Go8 university. Expect a lot of competition from people with international reputations in the field. Often potential candidates are approached by representatives of the university, so if you are considering an advertised position be aware that you may well be an outsider to done prime contenders.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/27
| 939
| 3,915
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm a fairly new Assistant Professor at a 4-year university. As is often the case our teaching load is high and we are also expected to do research. Personally, I like both teaching and doing research.
* The difficult part of it, however, is to attract the students to work in your lab (often on a voluntary basis) that will make it worth the time and effort needed to train them.
* The other challenge is this: once you have a student that you clearly see has the ability to perform well (both intellectually and skill-wise to work in a lab), how do I motivate them to spend as much time as they can in the lab?
It's obviously not worth it when a student starts an experiment and then loses the motivation to come in in-between classes to make a measurement. It's my feeling that the students see it like this: "if I come in and do some work in the lab, then that's good and useful for the professor", but without the true engagement to learn something from the experiment, without the student having the curiosity and passion to follow-up, it becomes more like waste of time and money.
Obviously, I realize that I'm asking a lot. It's generally accepted that this kind of behaviour/motivation can be expected from a Ph.D. student, but not so much from an undergrad. Nonetheless, this is the situation that many professors are in since they only get to work with undergrads and are still expected (and genuinely want) to do exciting research. If I could, I would spend much more time in the lab myself, but it's just not always possible.<issue_comment>username_1: What are the students getting in return for this?
* Experience/interesting work? Then it's fun, but don't ever expect them to treat it as more than a hobby or fun project.
* Money or course credit: Then it's their job to show up and work. The will show up, or you will fire them / fail them.
* Publication: are your students credited on the publication? Will doing this work build their CV and make it easier for them to get jobs, or accepted into grad studies?
Anything else seems to fall dangerously into "how can I turn undergrads into unpaid interns". They have their own classes to work on and their own lives to run, and doing experiments probably isn't what gets them out of bed every day.
Does your university have a "Capita Selecta" or "Project Course" or "Individual Study" option? If so, you could give your students course credit for their involvement in your work, in which case they would be obligated to show up. They would get enough out of their contribution that it would be worth their time.
>
> It's generally accepted that this kind of behaviour/motivation can be expected from a Ph.D. student, but not so much from an undergrad.
>
>
>
Because the PhD student is being paid to be there, and the undergraduate isn't.
The takeaway
------------
Being an undergraduate is hard. You've got 4-5 classes, all of whom want you to work like that class is the only one you're taking. You are probably having to work to pay your way through school, and you are trying to have enough leisure time that you don't go insane.
Your best way to get them interested is to take away one of these stressors: pay them (so they don't have to work), give them course credit (so they can take less classes), or treat it like leisure (so they can do something they enjoy casually).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: You have to relate this lab work with their theoretical knowledge which they acquired in their classes. In your lab, do the experiments which are related to the theory classes of the students, so that students can understand how it can be implemented in pratical scenario. These classes will be different from theoretical classes and is more interactive and fun to work. In this manner, they get the chance to refine their skills and also get strong hold on their class subjects.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/27
| 1,615
| 6,524
|
<issue_start>username_0: In U.S., Canadian and European universities do new professors have to pass a drug test before starting their career? Or is it only required when they are promoted to full-time tenure professors?<issue_comment>username_1: Is this a serious question? I would refuse to work anywhere where my employer would require me to do such a test. It is simply none of their business.
I am actually not aware of any (European) university that would require *anyone* to take a drug test. In fact, it would be illegal in many countries to do this (or at least, there are very strict rules about the circumstances in which it would be legal).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: In Germany you will be subjected to a medical examination if you become a civil servant. Full professors (W3) are typically civil servants. The levels below that (W1 and W2), are typically also civil servants, though not permanent and the examination tends to be a bit easier. Post-docs (TVL 13 or 14) are typically "normal" employees, and those are not subjected to the examination.
I believe that it is in principle possible to refuse the civil servant status and become a professor as a normal employee, and thus avoid the medical examination. However, I don't know of anyone who has done so voluntarily as the financial benefits of civil servant status are substantial (job security, lower tax rate, better pension).
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I did some web searching. I found cases in the US where primary and secondary teachers were subject to pre-emplyment drug tests. I found cases in the US where student employees at a university were subject to drug tests. I found cases in the US where those in "high risk" jobs at a university were subject to tests. But I did not find blanket drug tests for prospective university faculty.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: For the N=1 data point of a newly hired assistant professor at a U.S. state university: Nope.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: While drug testing is very common in the USA, this is not the case world wide. In the UK it is rare. The [uk government advises](https://www.gov.uk/monitoring-work-workers-rights/drug-testing)
>
> Employers should:
>
>
> * limit testing to employees that need to be tested
> * ensure the tests are
> random
> * not single out particular employees for testing unless this is
> justified by the nature of their jobs
>
>
> Workers can’t be made to take a
> drugs test but if they refuse when the employer has good grounds for
> testing, they may face disciplinary action.
>
>
>
Part of the difference is that trade union membership is much higher in Europe, particularly in white collar jobs, such as teaching.
The [Trade Union congress notes](https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/health-and-safety/drugs-and-alcohol/guides-and-reports-reps/drug-testing-workplace) that it drug tests are rare in the uk, outside of transport and energy generation.
It further notes that in many European countries, pre-employment testing is not allowed, however in the UK the law is less clear. Employment tribunals have established that possession of drugs outside the workplace cannot in itself be grounds for dismissal. There must be evidence of impairment.
This implies that **a university lecturer would not be asked to provide a sample for drug testing prior to employment, nor during employment nor prior to gaining promotion**, since a univiersity would not be able to convince an employment tribunal that such testing is needed.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_6: In the academical sphere, I never heard any similar. I know only Middle Europe, but multiple countries there.
Its reason isn't that the Profs here would be addict, but its exact opposite: it is unthinkable on such a level, that nobody thinks it would be needed.
The wider context:
The long-term mental harms of drugs would make you probably ineligible to fulfill a full-time academical job.
Most of the drugs have a time until they are emptied from your body. You can google for that on the net. After that, the test will be negative. But it would be much better if you wouldn't need such tricks, i.e. you could simply pass the test without any problem.
Employers often have similar traditions, for example they can wish some papers from the police that you aren't an offender.
Considering things like these are in our cultural circles nearly unheard, it is really no more as a tradition. Maybe it could serve as a little positive psychological effect to show for everybody, that your university/company is perfectly "pure". Although knowing, that everybody laughs on this little ritual behind your back, can cause maybe more harm.
I suggest don't play the idealist liberal, allow them this show. They need it for the feeling that they are "clean", it doesn't cost for you anything, and they are your employer. There is no real reason to reject the test.
Upvotes: -1 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_7: The City Colleges of Chicago are one of the largest community college in the US and they require a drug test for new employees including professors or adjunct, so I think it's not that uncommon in the States.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Another data point: In Finland, I think there is a drug test for persons managing research-purpose drugs, who are sometimes also professors. So the answer could be yes for some particular positions. Though, I am not sure if this practice is shared by all Finnish universities.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_9: You ask a very broad question covering the US, Canada and Europe. I (obviously) don't know the law and practices in each and every country but note that drug tests are extremely uncommon and widely considered unacceptable in most of Europe (cf. Damian's answer, which seemed unrealistic to many US commenters but shows how this sounds to European ears).
To give you an idea of the way this is perceived, the European Court of Human Rights heard several cases pertaining to drug testing at work. It did allow some in the end but only in very limited cases (think a ship's captain who is suspected by his employer of putting many lives in danger, not routine screening prior to employment). Very often, a test would be performed when an employee holding a job with particular security implications already seems to be intoxicated and the employer needs some hard evidence to initiate disciplinary action (and, again, not for *prospective* employees).
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/27
| 1,173
| 5,099
|
<issue_start>username_0: When I was preparing the camera-ready version of a paper, one of my co-author asked me to put in the acknowledgements section that his research was funded by the grant N12345.
Just out of curiosity, I searched the grant number, and found its description: "applying technique X on problem A".
I was very surprised, because my paper is completely unrelated to either X or A. Moreover, I know very well that this co-author has very little background in both X and A, let alone doing research. Although he is a very good researcher, these just are not his expertise.
The grant is for 3 years, and it is going to expire in a couple of months. He has not published any paper related to A or X. However, he has published many papers in completely different topics, e.g. the paper with me, and claimed that they were supported by this grant.
Is it the way to do if your field of research has limited funding? Might he go into troubles if it is discovered by the funding agency that the papers are actually not related to the grant proposal?<issue_comment>username_1: Many grants require progress reports. The [NIH system](https://grants.nih.gov/grants/rppr/index.htm) is pretty smart and automatically finds publications by the PI. The system lists if the publication acknowledges the grant. When reviewing officials check the progress report they look to make sure the publications that acknowledge the grant are related and that those that do not acknowledge the grant are not related. They obviously are not experts, but they often know enough to judge what is and is not related.
If they find that the grant was used to fund a lot of research that was very far removed from the aims, the PI might get a nasty email saying do not do it again. If the PI has a history of doing it, at some point the funder might cancel the contract. It might eventually go so far as to blacklist the PI. In the worse case, which I think is unlikely, the funder could probably sue to get the money back. In the US, it is the university who holds the grant, so the PI would have an additional level of bureaucratic protection.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: The big underlying question here is what it means for a paper to be *"related to a grant"*. Different funding agencies have different rules on this, either a more "staff-oriented view" or a more "topic-oriented view".
* Many pure science funds, for instance the [Swiss National Science Foundation](http://www.snf.ch/en/Pages/default.aspx), take a liberal stance on what *kind* of science can be enabled through each individual project. Essentially, while a project is given to support a specific idea, they are fully aware and quite happy that in addition to, and sometimes instead of, this project, other more or less related studies will also happen by the staff paid partly or in full through the project. At the end of the day, the SNF and other similar agencies care not so much about the specific piece of science that is described in the project, but that *some* valuable science is happening and that PhD students are graduating. Based on this view, researchers funded through SNF are expected to acknowledge them on every paper they do, no matter if it has to do with any of the science described in the project description. The collection of all papers acknowledging this project is then not understood as "all papers on topic X", but rather "all topics enabled by funding project Y, on topic X and any side projects that the funded students did in addition or instead".
* Other, especially more applied funds such as most of the European Commission's [Horizon 2020](https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/) programme, are much more interested in specific topics than in funding just about any research. For them, acknowledgements have much more the meaning that you seem to imply, that is, that citing this project in the acknowledgements of the paper implies that this contributes to the mission of the project. How strongly this is enforced or checked depends on the project officer. Most people also seem to take a rather liberal approach in practice, but there are certainly project officers that have formally complained about projects using the allocated funds to sponsor other research.
>
> Might he go into troubles if it is discovered by the funding agency that the papers are actually not related to the grant proposal?
>
>
>
So at the end of the day, it really depends on whether the agency actually considers this "topically unrelated but financially enabled by the grant" paper as "unrelated". I would say, in absence of any other information, you can safely assume that your co-author did nothing wrong, and that the agency may be fine with this acknowledgement.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Many funding bodies (for example the EPSRC and the Royal Society) explicitly say they are happy with any research you do on a grant they have funded.
That grant has funded this work -- your co-author is spending time which the grant is paying for on your paper.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/27
| 463
| 2,053
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm about to submit my first scholarly manuscript to the top journal in my field, which has an acceptance rate of 20-25%. One of the co-authors on my paper, besides being generally well-known in this field, happens to be on the editorial board of this journal as an associate editor. Obviously I imagine that he'll automatically be excluded from the review process due to conflict of interest, but does their affiliation with the journal increase the chance of the paper getting accepted? I should note that the paper has already been through several rounds of internal revision and I've received excellent feedback so far from both this particular coauthor and others.<issue_comment>username_1: All things considered, a paper coauthored by an editor should **not** improve the chances of getting accepted.
It is unlikely that the reviewers will be aware that one of the coauthors is an associate editor, so their reviews will be probably not be influenced by that.
This is even more obvious in case the reviews are double-blind.
It is possible (although also unlikely) that the editor responsible for your paper might take a slightly more favorable view to your paper in case the reviews are borderline.
However, in any case this will not improve your chances much.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: In principle, no.
In actuality? It likely does, under a couple of different mechanisms:
1. An editor might be slightly more likely to give your paper the "benefit of the doubt" if its a borderline case between Revise/Reject, etc. This may also be true if your co-authors are "known" names, regardless of their editorial position.
2. An AE at a journal likely has extensive experience writing for, and reviewing, papers in that journal. As such, they probably have a good sense what kind of papers they're looking for, the tone they should be written in, etc.
So the answer, in a practical sense, is likely "Yes, but not by a huge amount." And possibly not after controlling for recognition and experience.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/27
| 524
| 2,241
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a PhD holder in Analytical Chemistry from Iran and now, I am very interested in applying for a PhD program in a somewhat different field like Nanotechnology in the US and Canada. I have invested much time and effort on preparing for taking GRE and TOEFL exams and I have a strong research background, but now I heard recently from one of my professors that most institutions are not prepared to offer a PhD position to one who already has one PhD. Could you say more about this issue? Is this true?<issue_comment>username_1: Certainly, it happens. I am currently pursuing a second PhD myself, in a field very different from my first. I just learned that one of my fellow graduate students in our department also has an earlier PhD, and hers is from a field very close to our department's.
As the thread linked by ff524 notes, there are many people who wish to earn a second PhD for all the wrong reasons. But you didn't ask whether it was a good idea to earn a second PhD, you asked whether Universities would admit you. The answer is that many will, but they certainly may be wary of this aspect of your application. As commenters have pointed out below, some universities flatly will not consider your application. Amongst those that will consider your application, some admissions committees will not like your previous degree, and others will not care. In my case, I felt the admissions committee did not really care about my earlier degree; they cared about my ability to demonstrate potential in my new field.
Furthermore, before applying to my current institution, I emailed roughly eight departments asking whether an application someone such as myself would be welcomed. Every single one of them replied to me to say that yes, it would; and several were encouraging about my prospects if I did apply.
Nonetheless you should be prepared to accept that some admissions committees will not like your previous degree, and you should be prepared to explain to them your good reasons for pursuing a second PhD.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: It depends. For example, in CS, some top schools don't allow this, like stanford MIT berkeley, etc. You should look carefully at the websites.
Upvotes: -1
|
2016/07/27
| 1,334
| 5,190
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am about ready to sumbit a paper in mathematics, but I have one worry. While researching, I came across a sentence in the introduction of an old paper that I really want to use (with a very minor modification) in my abstract. It has been in all of my drafts for a long while now, and I can't see getting rid of it!!!
Is this a serious issue? Even though I'm stealing the sentence, I am not actually stealing any mathematics, so it kind of seems (??) okay to me. The old paper is cited elsewhere in my paper, by the way. I just don't know how I can give credit for a phrase when it appears in the abstract... it would seem overkill to put the whole citation in the abstract.
In times like these I wish I hadn't ditched all my English major friends.
EDIT: THANKS for all of the replies. You convinced me to change to wording, and I believe I ended up with something almost as good. I am a nervous wreck as it is, so I definitely don't need this plagiarism thing weighing on my conscience!!<issue_comment>username_1: Most journals do not allow you to include references in the abstract, but you should not steal the sentence without attribution. Some options:
1. Remove the sentence from the abstract and include it in the Introduction, with appropriate attribution and referencing.
2. Put the quote in both the abstract and the Introduction. In the abstract, try the following format: '"This is a beautiful quote about mathematics," accoring to <NAME>.' In the Introduction, repeat the quote with the full reference.
3. Put it into your own words in the abstract and include the quote, properly referenced in the Introduction.
4. Take it out.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: No, do not "excerpt" an excellent sentence. Apparently your point is that that particular verbalization of an idea was sufficiently exceptional that you could see no better expression. And, yes, this is a reasonable conclusion, since it is entirely possible that things are very-highly-optimized. But all the worse, you ought not neglect to credit someone who has achieved that tight, nearly-ultimate, optimization. The "art" of critical expression is not officially recognized, yet it is implicitly recognized in almost all things people do.
That is, think about real-politick...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: A good rule is: **Do not paste verbatim text from another manuscript into your manuscript, unless it is a clearly indicated quote**
You may think that at some point you'll edit the text enough that it will be sufficiently unique. Or you may see it as a place holder that you can use to guide your writing. However, this is very dangerous from a plagiarism perspective. Time goes by and you can forget what was your text, what was taken verbatim from elsewhere, and you can be left uncertain as to whether you have changed it.
Furthermore, even when you are taking personal notes in a working file. Put quotes around anything you take from another source. You do not want to risk contaminating your manuscript with text where it is unclear whether it is your words or the words of another.
However, now that you have a sentence that pretty much comes from another source, unless one of a few exceptions apply, you should remove it and replace it with another phrasing. A few exceptions would be (a) it is a canonical phrase, (b) you've altered enough words and it's generally a fairly standard sentence. Citations and references allow you to more closely paraphrase the words of the original authors; of course, if it is a quote, then use quotation marks.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: I think some of the early advice on this question was really bad. It's easy to give casual attribution for a quote if you do it like this:
>
> Abstract : This paper is devoted to the study of K-algebras. It has
> long been known that 'All regular K-algebras are equivalent, but every
> irregular K-algebra is irregular in its own way.' (Tolstoy). We
> classify a new family of irregular K-algebras. This result has
> implications in algebra theory.
>
>
>
Then you can cite the paper properly in the body of your paper. Writing the abstract like this makes it very clear *who* the quote came from and you can deal with the *where* later.
Upvotes: 6 <issue_comment>username_5: "An authority for the answer — properly attributed": (<NAME>, 1910)
"Everything’s Already Been Said." (<NAME>, 2011) "It is very challenging to write completely original content" (ibid) "but nobody will notice this when reading" (<NAME>, 2005) "and great minds think alike anyway" (<NAME>, 2012) "so you might as well just use it", (<NAME>, 2012) as "nobody will care anyway" (<NAME>, 2014) "especially if it is not important to them" (<NAME>, 2011)
"I hope that helps" (<NAME>, 2016)
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: There are so many opinions out there that you have to be careful! I say that when in doubt go to the source. I suggest you buy the AP or MLA Manual or go to Purdue Owl/online writing lab. There you will find the writing styles and a whole section on 'avoiding plagiarism.' Go to the source, my friend!! Good luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/28
| 2,596
| 8,796
|
<issue_start>username_0: On Google Scholar, you can do an author search based on keywords. For example, if I find an author who has "Robotics" as a keyword, and I click on that keyword, it lists all the authors with that keyword, in order of the number of citations.
What I would like to do, is see that same list, but:
1) Only for authors in my country
And:
2) By combining it with another keyword, e.g. all the authors who have "Robotics" and "Machine Learning".
Is this kind of advanced author search possible?<issue_comment>username_1: You can search multiple keywords with something like this:
```
label:robotics + label:machine_learning
```
in the author search. Narrowing by country can be trickier. You can potentially narrow by the email address. For example, if their profile is verified with a UK email address it will end in `.ac.uk`. Thus you can search:
```
label:robotics + label:machine_learning + .ac.uk
```
and only get UK researchers. You'll probably get some false positives and negatives with this technique so it's not perfect but will help narrow the scope.
Here's a related question pertaining to narrowing country on Google Scholar:
[Google Scholar: how to exclude some countries from the search?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/59681/google-scholar-how-to-exclude-some-countries-from-the-search)
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A complimentary answer to [username_1](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/73420/154711) if you want to do it programmatically via Python. Additionally, you can add functionality to save those results to CSV/Excel or to DB.
Code and [full example in the online IDE](https://replit.com/@DimitryZub1/search-for-authors-on-google-scholar-by-their-field-of-study#main.py) to test out extraction part:
```
# Iterates over all pages and extracts profile results.
from parsel import Selector
import requests, json, re
# https://docs.python-requests.org/en/master/user/quickstart/#passing-parameters-in-urls
params = {
"view_op": "search_authors", # author results
"mauthors": f'label:robotics + .de + "University of Freiburg"', # search query
"hl": "en", # language
"astart": 0 # page number
}
# https://docs.python-requests.org/en/master/user/quickstart/#custom-headers
headers = {
"User-Agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.87 Safari/537.36",
}
profile_results = []
profiles_is_present = True
while profiles_is_present:
# make a request
html = requests.get("https://scholar.google.com/citations", params=params, headers=headers, timeout=30)
# pass response to HTML/XML processing library
selector = Selector(text=html.text)
print(f"extracting authors at page #{params['astart']}.")
# iterate over profile results from one page
for profile in selector.css(".gsc_1usr"):
name = profile.css(".gs_ai_name a::text").get()
link = f'https://scholar.google.com{profile.css(".gs_ai_name a::attr(href)").get()}'
affiliations = profile.css(".gs_ai_aff").xpath("normalize-space()").get()
email = profile.css(".gs_ai_eml").xpath("normalize-space()").get()
cited_by = profile.css(".gs_ai_cby *::text").get()
interests = profile.css(".gs_ai_one_int::text").getall()
# append extracted result to the list
profile_results.append({
"profile_name": name,
"profile_link": link,
"profile_affiliations": affiliations,
"profile_email": email,
"profile_city_by_count": cited_by,
"profile_interests": interests
})
# check if next page token is present -> update next page token and increment 10 to get the next page
if selector.css("button.gs_btnPR::attr(onclick)").get():
# https://regex101.com/r/e0mq0C/1
params["after_author"] = re.search(r"after_author\\x3d(.*)\\x26",
selector.css("button.gs_btnPR::attr(onclick)").get()).group(1) # -> XB0HAMS9__8J
params["astart"] += 10
else:
profiles_is_present = False
print(json.dumps(profile_results, indent=2))
```
Part of the JSON output:
```
[
{
"profile_name": "<NAME>",
"profile_link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=zj6FavAAAAAJ",
"profile_affiliations": "Professor of Computer Science, University of Freiburg",
"profile_email": "Verified email at informatik.uni-freiburg.de",
"profile_city_by_count": "Cited by 94818",
"profile_interests": [
"Robotics",
"Artificial Intelligence",
"AI",
"Machine Learning",
"Computer Vision"
]
}, ... other results
]
```
---
Alternatively, you can achieve it using [Google Scholar Profile Results API](https://serpapi.com/google-scholar-profiles-api) from SerpApi. It's a paid API with a free plan which differs by providing a complete solution without the need to figure out how to extract the data and maintain it over time.
```
# Iterates over all pages and extracts profile results.
import os, json
from urllib.parse import urlsplit, parse_qsl
from serpapi import GoogleSearch
params = {
"api_key": os.getenv("API_KEY"), # SerpApi API key
"engine": "google_scholar_profiles", # profile results search engine
"mauthors": f'label:robotics + .de + "University of Freiburg"' # search query
}
search = GoogleSearch(params) # where extraction happens on SerpApi backend
profile_results_data = []
profiles_is_present = True
while profiles_is_present:
profile_results = search.get_dict() # JSON -> Python dictionary
for profile in profile_results["profiles"]:
thumbnail = profile["thumbnail"]
name = profile["name"]
link = profile["link"]
author_id = profile["author_id"]
affiliations = profile["affiliations"]
email = profile.get("email")
cited_by = profile.get("cited_by")
interests = profile.get("interests")
profile_results_data.append({
"thumbnail": thumbnail,
"name": name,
"link": link,
"author_id": author_id,
"email": email,
"affiliations": affiliations,
"cited_by": cited_by,
"interests": interests
})
if "next" in profile_results.get("pagination", []):
# splits URL in parts as a dict() and update search "params" variable to a new page that will be passed to GoogleSearch()
search.params_dict.update(dict(parse_qsl(urlsplit(profile_results.get("pagination").get("next")).query)))
else:
profiles_is_present = False
print(json.dumps(profile_results_data, indent=2))
```
Part of the JSON output:
```
[
{
"thumbnail": "https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/citations?view_op=small_photo&user=zj6FavAAAAAJ&citpid=6",
"name": "<NAME>",
"link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=zj6FavAAAAAJ",
"author_id": "zj6FavAAAAAJ",
"email": "Verified email at informatik.uni-freiburg.de",
"affiliations": "Professor of Computer Science, University of Freiburg",
"cited_by": 94818,
"interests": [
{
"title": "Robotics",
"serpapi_link": "https://serpapi.com/search.json?engine=google_scholar_profiles&hl=en&mauthors=label%3Arobotics",
"link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label:robotics"
},
{
"title": "Artificial Intelligence",
"serpapi_link": "https://serpapi.com/search.json?engine=google_scholar_profiles&hl=en&mauthors=label%3Aartificial_intelligence",
"link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label:artificial_intelligence"
},
{
"title": "AI",
"serpapi_link": "https://serpapi.com/search.json?engine=google_scholar_profiles&hl=en&mauthors=label%3Aai",
"link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label:ai"
},
{
"title": "Machine Learning",
"serpapi_link": "https://serpapi.com/search.json?engine=google_scholar_profiles&hl=en&mauthors=label%3Amachine_learning",
"link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label:machine_learning"
},
{
"title": "Computer Vision",
"serpapi_link": "https://serpapi.com/search.json?engine=google_scholar_profiles&hl=en&mauthors=label%3Acomputer_vision",
"link": "https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&view_op=search_authors&mauthors=label:computer_vision"
}
]
}, ... other results
]
```
>
> Disclaimer, I work for SerpApi.
>
>
>
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/28
| 460
| 1,811
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just received my diploma from my university. I'm very happy and my results aren't that bad either. Now, as the result is already known, I would like to thank my professor and my supervisor for their support.
Would it be acceptable, if I make them a gift to express my thankfulness?
I was thinking of a bottle of a good liquor for both of them.<issue_comment>username_1: The safest way to express your gratitude is to (hand)write a thank-you-card. In all likelihood that will be appreciated just as much as a gift, and is guaranteed not to cause any trouble.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would suggest avoiding anything as substantial as a bottle of liquor. However a small gift is generally seen as acceptable. Such as a mug/cup, biscuits, or as has been stated a hand written thank you card would be fine.
Don't go too over the top as it may cause an issue for the professor/supervisor either in terms of admin problems, or just making them feel a little awkward.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: In our case, it's a strict no, no matter whether before or after examinations. We would have to relinquish the gift **and** do a lot of tedious paperwork to document how we were or may have been influenced by the gift. In other words, not only would we not enjoy the gift, the attempt to please us would end with punishing us with a lot of tedious paperwork. I can imagine this to be the case in many institutions.
Why after the examinations, too? I assume the reasoning is that, if it gets known that gifts are expected/accepted, there may be an incentive to pre-announce them. So, the policy is strictly no gifts.
@MaartenBuis' response is thus by far the best one: a nice thank-you card will always please your professor and not cause any trouble.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/28
| 866
| 3,115
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am writing a job application which lists the universities I have given invited talks at. What I would like some advice on, is whether I should always write each university out in full, or whether I should always use the common acronym / abbreviation associated with that university (if any), or whether it should depend on how well-known that acronym / abbreviation is.
For example, consider the following passage:
>
> I have given talks at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology, Carnegie Melon University, the University of California Berkeley, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, University College London, the Technical University of Munich, Kings College London, Manchester Metropolitan University.
>
>
>
If I were to use all the acronyms / abbreviations, then it would read:
>
> I have given talks at MIT, Caltech, CMU, UC Berkeley, ETH Zürich, UCL, TMU, KCL, MMU.
>
>
>
Now, some of these acronyms / abbreviations are well-known (the first few), but some are not (the last few), *particularly for non-academics*.
But would it look strange if I used a mixture? Let’s see:
>
> I have given talks at MIT, Caltech, CMU, UC Berkeley, ETH Zürich, UCL, Technical University Munich, King's College London, Manchester Metropolitan University.
>
>
>
Yes, that looks a bit strange to me. So what rule should I use? Should I be consistent, or should I decide for each university what rule to use?<issue_comment>username_1: When the abbreviation is actually better known than the full name, go with the abbreviation. Otherwise, use the full name. That will render the last option you proposed (though it would be fine to write TU Munich as well).
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: **Assuming you're applying for an academic job**, I recommend including a *bulleted list* of *full names* in your CV, in either alphabetical order or (if you also include dates) chronological order. There is absolutely no reason to be concise in your CV; ink is cheap, especially since nobody uses it any more. (If you really think a list of all talks is too long, cluster by year, but still use full names in each year's one-line list.)
>
> **Invited talks**
>
>
> * California Institute of Technology
> * Carnegie Mellon University
> * Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (twice)
> * King's College London
> * Manchester Metropolitan University
> * Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> * Technische Universität München
> * University of California, Berkeley
> * University College London
> * University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople (14 times)
>
>
>
If you want to emphasize this list in your cover letter, you can write "I have given invited talks at several leading institutions, including Caltech, ETH Zürich, and TU Munich; see my CV for a complete list."
[And yes, you should use the word "invited".](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/35378/65)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Write the full name for each. It's crystal clear and complete. There will be no misunderstanding.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/29
| 1,624
| 6,782
|
<issue_start>username_0: I submitted a paper to a journal and got the referee report. In the first referee report the same surname has been repeated 10 times, and since then the referee has insisted on a discussion about that paper.
I've read the paper, and the paper is dealing with a different subject. It can seldom be considered as relevant. The demand for commenting on that particular work was declined by us and the paper was eventually rejected. Apart from the editors, should there be a way to control this excessive use of the refereeing power?
After putting the paper on the arXiv, the lead author of that paper already contacted me to cite some the related works (of course mostly his works). Interestingly, the citation in question is not even regarded as relevant by the leading author.<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Apart from the editors, should there be a way to control this excessive use of the refereeing power?
>
>
>
Straight-forward answer: **no**. This is what an editor should check for. If (s)he does not care or does not agree with you, your only option is to go for a different journal, with consequently a different editor.
I should also add that, in my experience, few reviewers request their papers to be added willy-nilly. If this reviewer thinks her or his work is missing, you should *at least* do a thorough check of why (s)he would think so, and then accurately report in your response letter. It seems unsurprising to me that your paper was rejected if your response to *"important related work from XYZ is missing"* was *"we did some high-level searching and it seemed kinda unrelated, so we skipped it"*. I as an editor would also consider this at least a substantial nudge into "reject" territory.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> Apart from the editors, should there be a way to control this excessive use of the refereeing power?
>
>
>
What do you mean by "apart from the editors"? That's like saying, "Apart from gravity, is there anything that makes apples fall from trees?"
Referees do not accept or reject papers. They make recommendations. Editors accept or reject papers based on their opinions of those recommendations. If the referees *recommend* spurious changes, your response to the referees comments should explain why those changes are spurious. If your paper is rejected after that, either it was rejected for other reasons or the editors believed that the requested changes were not spurious. In the latter case, your only option is to find a different editor, i.e., resubmit the paper to another journal.
Referees do not have the power you think they have. For example, as a referee, I've had an editor accept a paper after I gave what I believe to be good technical reasons for rejecting it. Why? Because the decision is theirs to make and they obviously valued the other referee's opinion more than mine.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: Refusing to discuss the references suggested by the referee is not a wise move. There are two cases to be considered:
1. Either it is in fact highly related work, and then your dismissal of the suggestion appears unprofessional, even if the referee is the author of the said papers, or
2. The papers are in fact unrelated. But then there should be a reason for that. For example in the response you could write something like:
*Thanks for the suggestion. We read paper X and found it to be about topic Y, whereas our paper is about topic X. Techniques from topic Y cannot be used for X because of* (TechnicalDifficulty). *We also checked the technical contributions of the paper and found that none of the ideas can be adapted to the problem that we are solving.*
You need to ensure as an author that you make the impression that you thoughtfully considered adding the related work and that there is a good scientific reason for not including it. Skimming through the paper is *not* sufficient. As an example, I once needed to tell a paper author after a scientific talk that his main idea was already in the literature: it was a lemma in a paper on an only marginally related topic, but since the technique applied there was *exactly* the same as in his new work, this still counts as a duplicate. In the other paper, the result was never mentioned in abstract and introduction, because for its authors, it was only a lemma.
As to the actual question: If you make a proper response and the referee still insists on the inclusion in the second reviewing round without giving good reasons, then the editor should see that the request for reference inclusion is unreasonable - so the editor *should* then just ignore the referee's comment. This is the mechanism by which this unfair power difference is balanced, and hence there is no need for a change in the process (at least not for this reason).
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_4: One suggestion not mentioned in other answers so far: **ask for clarification!** That is, send a short email to the editor, something like:
>
> Subject: Request for clarification from referee A
>
>
> Dear [editor’s name],
>
>
> We are currently revising our submission based on the referee reports, and there’s one point on which we would be grateful for further clarification. Referee A suggested we should mention the connections with (Jones et al, 2005); however, it’s not clear to us which points of (Jones et al) they had in mind as particularly relevant to our submission. (Briefly, (Jones et al) studies the weights of birds, while we study the heights of trees.) Could you ask Referee A if they can elaborate on this suggestion, please?
>
>
>
*Do* make clear that you have read (Jones et al) — not necessarily a totally thorough reading, but you should at least read the introduction and skim-read the whole paper, say. Provided you’ve done that, a quick request for clarification is completely reasonable (at least based in my experience refereeing in pure mathematics — I’ve received a couple of such questions passed on from editors).
Possibilities for what you might get in response include:
* Referee A points out a genuine connection that you had overlooked. “The object of study is different, but they use a closely related novel statistical method (though with different notation)…” Then you can follow their suggestion and mention the connection.
* Referee A takes back their suggestion: “I was thinking of the similar statistical methods, but I notice now that Jones was drawing on (Wilson, 2002), which you already discuss in Section 3. So there is no need to cite Jones as well.”
* Referee A doesn’t say anything particularly helpful. Then the editor can see this (as they pass the response back to you), so you are on firmer ground to ignore this particular suggestion.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/29
| 2,812
| 11,578
|
<issue_start>username_0: Every morning, at the institution where I work, I attend a lecture series with on the order of 100 other students. The lecture hall is very central on campus, and large meetings are often held nearby -- almost right outside -- at the same time. Very frequently, tables equipt with refreshments accompany these meetings. Again very frequently, I will pour myself a cup of coffee as I go by.
I'm reasonably certain that this is unethical (\*), but what surprises me is how socially deviant it appears. Of the approximately 100 students with whom I attend lectures, I do not see any of them making use of these resources on a regular basis. I've once or twice been harshly reprimanded by a conference-goer getting coffee at the same time as myself, and I've seen people sit down to work only about 20 meters away with coffee that they've licitly purchased, even if the meeting was clearly over and the refreshments were just waiting to be cleaned up. I once walked by a table just as it was being cleared and asked the staff member clearing it if it was okay for me to take something, and he was totally cool with it. I've never seen signs posted near the tables indicating that the refreshments are intended strictly for the attendees of the meeting, though I would guess that this is assumed to be understood. My only other source for views on this matter is PHD Comics, which has published an assortment of strips centered on the topic of free food.
I know that social norms probably vary geographically, maybe even by discipline, but I was wondering what others' experiences have been as regards stealing free food. As is -- I believe -- apparent, I consider it a relatively minor trespass, but other than the conference-goers who've yelled at me I've never heard the issue brought up explicitly. So, how do you think people judge the stealing of free food, and how have you formed these perceptions?
(\*) I'm only "reasonably certain" because, as I understand it, the excesses from these meeting are frequently thrown out. As someone legitimately attending a conference, I've been instructed explicitly by the organizers to take excess food with me to avoid wasting it in this manner. I dislike waste in general, and I particularly abhor the waste of perfectly good food, especially coffee.
Note: I'm not 100% sure that this belongs on Academia Stack Exchange, but **this is *not* a question about the ethics of stealing coffee;** I am interested specifically in the attitudes of academics towards stealing free food. For instance, why do so few others seem to do so? People do little unethical things all the time -- arguably, speeding falls in this category -- but I seem almost alone in breaking this particular rule.<issue_comment>username_1: A useful way to think about free food/coffee is to try to determine its purpose. Why did someone spend time and money to provide it? Are you subverting that purpose by taking it? The refreshment might be there
* to attract people to an event
* to encourage socialization or attentiveness at an event
* to create a more welcoming general work environment somewhere
* etc.
If you are taking something which is destined to be thrown away, that is more ethical than taking refreshments from a seminar that you didn't attend.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Three considerations in rationalizing activities (on campus):
(1) Do not inconvenience the 'registered conference/meeting goers' or the equivalent. One's actions/choices should not delay or hinder them access, or make it unappetizing or difficult for them to partake.
(2) If one is not honest about small things (stealing some coffee) then when the stakes are higher one becomes more ethical?(really?). That sounds a lot like just being more cautious when the stakes are higher because the consequences if caught are more severe.
(3) On-campus, When it is clear there is plenty of extra coffee/tea/cookies/food - usually most faculty are OK with students getting some benefit as long as it doesn't conflict with (1). (And this is one rationalization why we tend to be flexible with (2) (But do not use (3) as rationalization to avoid paying for department coffee/tea/cookies when there is an honor system collecting money).
(3prime) If the setting is on-campus but not so clearly academic (say a for-profit conference center or eatery run by the university, most administrators are NOT OK with students getting some benefit of sampling a bit.
(4) If someone partakes of food and it is set out to encourage attendance at a colloq/seminar/meeting, then he must attend the meeting.
Examples of applying (1), (2), and (3).
If everyone going through the area samples the other meeting's coffee/tea/food/cookies, it becomes a problem, but if a few people do it is isn't. Avoid being a chronic sampler, and build up karmic points by occasionally buying it yourself.
When the other meeting is done, the food/coffee/etc is usually considered free game in the academic setting, but do be careful. When no one is around may also mean that the attendees are still in session and will be desperate for coffee/cookie when they get break.
Avoid taking food /coffee/tea before or during the intended times the conferees have access. Maneuvering around an interloper is almost annoying as finding that the preferred coffee/tea type/cookie/food is used up before one has gotten to it.
**edit one:**
Add more cautions to 'end of meeting' exceptions.
Added (3prime) to cover on-campus venues that are not the usual faculty/committee meetings.
Added (4) (attend the seminar)
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: The **big** difference here is simply whether the meeting is over or not, i.e. whether it would have to be thrown away or not. If those who are supposed to consume it (for which, as others have pointed out, someone paid) clearly have no intent of doing so (because they left), then I think it is fine to consume it.
In fact, in that case, you would even do them a favor because noone has to clean it up. But otherwise, it's stealing. Another indication for this is the group size: With about 100 students, there clearly wouldn't be enough if everyone took some coffee.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: This issue is particularly confusing because you are mixing several different scenarios.
"hard" facts:
* There is no free lunch,
* You do not have legitimate access to the food,
* You have no idea what they will do with the "leftovers".
One thing is for you to just get there and serve yourself. That is, literally, stealing, as you said yourself. The fact that is food can ease the rationalization, but doesn't change that. Fact 3, you don't know if they will take the leftovers to an orphanage, for instance. Or to the trash, I don't know either.
Another case is when you ask someone, with the appropriate level of "power", if you can serve yourself. With proper authorization, you change the second fact and it is not stealing.
Personally, best course of action that I can see, talk to the organizers, see if they have anything against you taking a cup everyday, even offer to help pay for it. The organizer will laugh, tell you to go right ahead. Then you can calmly tell the next guy that yells at you that you have proper authorization for the coffee, all clean and ethical :)
The only "academia-related" change would be that *students* might get a free pass. Since you *work* at the university, yeah, sorry, no free meal for you
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Just make sure the conference is over already before taking the coffee intended for the conference.
If the conference is still going on, conference-goers might want coffee, and if you wind up emptying out the coffee container, you'd be responsible for the conference-goer not getting coffee.
But if the conference is over, then anything left from the conference is excess, and will be thrown out anyway - so you are in no way obligated to leave it for anyone.
By waiting until the conference is over, you're avoiding any risk that you might take something from it that someone else wanted - and only someone who is truly uptight would have any problem with you using the leftovers that would otherwise get thrown out.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: Highly anecdotal answer ahead.
For about a month or so, I would do the same in my department's building outside of the main auditorium. There were even snacks that I would take. Now I assumed that these were available to all in the building(they were not).
A month later, after taking my share of food, one of the department chairs immediately called me out and told me to put the food back. He was definitely not pleased or forgiving. Afterwards, they had actually hired someone to stop people from taking from the table.
With that said, if I had set out a table like that for my own meeting, I wouldn't reasonably believe that just the people attending my meeting would take some of the refreshments. Now I'm not condoning my actions, or even condemning them, but I believe that's the most realistic.
All I would say is, like some of the other answers, wait until the conference is over and take what you'd like.
And as a side note, I would definitely consider myself as a social deviant in the department I study under.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: In general, **don't do it**. Someone is paying for it, and if they don't have you in mind when they write the check, then **it's not yours to freely take**. They are right to confront you when you do take it.
You don't want to get into the ethics of stealing coffee, but you've asked an ethical question to academics, so you're going to get it anyway. **You taking this limited resource not meant for you does not pass the universality test**. If every student attending your lecture swiped a cup as they strolled by, the can would surely empty quickly, likely depriving those who have a legitimate right to it. This seems an obvious point and neglecting it adds further insult to the illicit taking of a cup in the first place.
I do conferencing a lot. **Taking another group's food is a major infraction**. I've seen security called over it. I've seen security stationed with ropes and everything, just to preemptively protect a spread that may be exposed to outsiders. Putting it bluntly, the stuff's expensive. Feeding the neighborhood is just not in the budget.
Now, you talk about salvaging waste. I understand your feelings; I also abhor waste. But, **assuming they are done with it is dangerous ground**. There may be another session starting in an hour. You don't know, unless you ask. Now, if it's 7PM and no one is around, and no one's left any personal effects in the room, then it's probably going to be tossed once the staff gets to it. I say go for it, but outside of that scenario you must resist the urge. Remind yourself that it is not your coffee.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_8: Theft is theft. If the coffee was paid for by the Institution you work for, you are stealing from your employer.
* You can get fired for that (at least in Germany)
* It is highly unethical (i also don't take other things from my employer because they are "free" - like paper which is needed to print something on it, the coffee on the table of a conference prevents hundred people running to a long queue and stalling the meeting by not finding change/the way to the machine)
* I would hope you understand that PHD comics address a lot of things which the authors probably see very critical.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/07/29
| 1,003
| 3,634
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most scientific papers refer to almost any *formula* that contains the "=" sign by the word "equation". Consider this case:
Let `value = function(input) (1)` where `input` is a *known* input value and `value` is the result of the `function` computation. In this situation, there are no effective unknowns (we are guaranteed that no unknowns are hidden in the `function` expression either).
Most papers (if not all) often refer to expression (1) in sentences like "equation (1) is equivalent to", "referring to equation (1), we see that..".
Some pedantic referees, however, suggest the use of a more proper word (e.g. *formula* (1) instead of equation (1)).
Is there a grammar reference that solves this seemingly insignificant issue?
*Further clarification*
An example of an expression not considered an equation by a referee:
*(a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2 (1)*.<issue_comment>username_1: I'd say your referee is right.
When you have variables on both sides of an equality, i.e. when you show some relationship between variables, we tend to say this is a formula.
E.g. x + 2y = 3z is a formula.
If, however, one of the sides of your equality contains no variables, just value(s), then we say it's an equation.
E.g. x + 2y = 3 is an equation.
**Edit:** The "equation" environment in LaTeX can be quite confusing this way, as it is often used for formulas, rather than equations...
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Mathematically, one could say that a formula is an equation that defines one side (typically the left-hand side) in terms of the other side. An equation on the other hand states that two expressions in terms of previously defined quantities are equal.
For example, Pythagoras' theorem a^2 + b^2 = c^2 I would call a typical example of an equation: a,b,c are predefined lengths of a rectangular triangle, and it makes a non-trivial statement on how they are related.
On the other hand, if you simply assign a function value, y = f(x), then it makes sense to call that a formula, since you define y in terms of the right-hand side.
**Edit:** Federico makes a fair point.
Let me just add that "Mathematics into Type" by <NAME>, published by the AMS recommends, somewhat similar to Higham referenced by Federico:
>
> 6.4.2 Equations
>
>
> Do not capitalize. An author is apt to refer to the same display as equation (3), property (3), or definition (3); it can
> become rather confusing if the word is treated as a proper noun when
> references is made to it in so many ways.
>
>
>
which implies that at least alternative names are possible.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: From Higham, *Handbook of writing for the mathematical sciences* (emphasis mine):
>
> Referencing Equations
>
>
> When you reference an earlier equation it helps
> the reader if you add a word or phrase describing the nature of that
> equation. The aim is to save the reader the trouble of turning back to
> look at the earlier equation. For example, "From the definition (6.2)
> of dual norm" is more helpful than "From (6.2)"; and "Combining the
> recurrence (3.14) with inequality (2.9)" is more helpful than
> "Combining (3.14) and (2.9)". Mermin [200] calls this advice the "Good
> Samaritan Rule". **As in these examples, the word added should be something more informative than just "equation" (or the ugly abbreviation "Eq."), and inequalities, implications and lone
> expressions should not be referred to as equations.**
>
>
>
Pro-tip: arguing with a referee on such trivialities is rarely worth your time. Just do what they suggest.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2016/07/29
| 1,205
| 5,205
|
<issue_start>username_0: Say person A and person B are collaborating on a mathematics paper. It goes like this: person A repeatedly suggests proofs, and person B repeatedly finds flaws in them. Over time, this process culminates in a correct proof.
**Does person B deserve to be an author on this paper?** One might argue that the final paper would not have existed without B, so they deserve authorship. On the other hand, they did not actually contribute anything in the final work - each successive proof was generated by A alone.
[Wikipedia says that the development of RSA went something like this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)#History): "Rivest and Shamir, as computer scientists, proposed many potential functions while Adleman, as a mathematician, was responsible for finding their weaknesses," until Rivest hit on the final answer. But that might be overly reductive, and I don't know of any other examples.
(As a final note, I'm not A or B in this scenario - I'm just curious.)<issue_comment>username_1: To moderate <NAME>'s comment: **yes.** Your first assertion is that A and B are collaborating, which means they should be co-authors, unless one actively backs out.
For a mathematical project, it's easy to have lots of ideas but not enough time to pursue them all to see which (if any) work. If someone can shoot down ideas and tell you they definitely (or with high likelihood) won't work, this can help put you on the right track. So in your situation I would say B was instrumental in finding a correct solution.
(In a somewhat different abstract scenario where B dismisses some approaches to a problem that A suggests, and B does not otherwise actively work on the project, it may depends on the situation and they should have a discussion about whether B is a co-author or not. And some people will have different opinions about the same situation, e.g. RS versus A in the RSA example.)
In general in a mathematical collaboration, if there's one key idea it's unlikely that both collaborators arrive at it together. Maybe through discussion they enhance each other's understanding of the problem, and then one will have the key idea and the other will encourage/validate it. That doesn't mean was the other person was unnecessary, even if you can't
pinpoint parts of the final paper as being "their contribution."
(And if collaborations became competitive to the point of dropping co-authors just because the didn't see the final solution first, who would want to collaborate?)
Upvotes: 8 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: Pointing out errors is certainly a contribution to the paper, especially if done repeatedly. Indeed, it's possible that B's contribution exceeds A's. If A is getting lots of information of the form "this won't work" and "that won't work", the possibilities for something that does work can get narrowed down to the point where it's rather easy to find a proof (especially if the "won't work" information comes with an indication of *why* things won't work).
Rather than talking about two people collaborating, think about what happens when you write a solo paper. If your experience is like mine, it may well happen that discovering that early attempts won't work and understanding why they won't work is a bigger part of the job than finding the proof that finally does work.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: Pointing flaws isn't something negative in any way. Does the paper/theory worth anything if it has several flaws ? In my opinion he is doing an excellent job. Find every possible flaw in a paper, and fixing it, is what makes it consistent and reliable.
Get an example for something else external to mathematics, like the engineering process of a car. Those who test the car for safety, aren't doing a purely negative contribution, is a step that is mandatory, that is to check for any flaws. The car resulting from a process where no tests were made, will be a choice for you ? Will be accepted by the market ? The same goes for the paper, if B didn't work finding flaws, someone else will, it happens all the time, even with more than one person focusing on finding flaws, happens to someone else, external to the group, to find something.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Your question is quite interesting. However, I don't think the case of RSA is a good example for your question.
Suppose a scenario: X finds a proof, and submits it to a journal, where the reviewer finds the flaw and rejects it. He then improves the proof and submitted it again. Does X need to include this reviewer as a co-author? I think not.
What if X repeats this process until he has a correct proof? Does he need to add all reviewers as co-authors, or he only needs to do so when all reviewers happen to be the same person?
---
The case of RSA is very different. Rivest and Shamir proposed many potential one-way functions. These were not proof, they could be viewed as conjectures as best. By finding the weaknesses of those functions, Adleman actually provided the proofs (by counter-example???) that those functions were not one-way. Saying he just falsified the proof trivializes his contribution.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/29
| 593
| 2,668
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am getting ready to apply to some biomedical engineering programs this coming fall and I am a bit concerned about explaining why I am applying so late in life. A lot has happened in the ~15 years since I graduated with my first undergraduate degree.
I am concerned about how it will read. If I am honest, I will describe the windy path of a person finding himself and a career (with a number of pivots) and whom going forward wants to be in industry or closely aligned with industry activities. I feel this would be a deal killer as this is not what strong programs want in an applicant.
I will have to address why I am applying I am just wondering if I should selective in what I say to give me the best chances with the admission committee.
Any advice would be much appreciated.<issue_comment>username_1: In my opinion, age does not have any bad effect on your opportunities to continue your studies and education. It can also be a positive flag, since a candidate has not forgotten his dreams and username_1siasm in learning new topics. So, I believe you should be as honest as possible and do not try to over-express or hide any facts. Just talk about how you are interested in the field and program and how you are eager to learn from the courses. The advisors are looking for facts like this and are logically less worried about the age of the candidates.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: My own view is that you should just be candid and tailor your statement to your actual goals, taking account of your age. For example, if you're 60 years old and intending to retire in five to ten years, then the statement of purpose would set out what you hope to achieve in the relatively short remaining span of your working life. When I'm reviewing applications, I like to see that the applicant is realistic about their circumstances and their journey, and they have a purpose and plans that make sense (although even if they don't, I don't really consider that something worthy of disqualification).
If a selection panel is inclined to view older applicants as less valuable, then that is something that is hard to prevent (or even detect) in most cases. I would imagine that misgivings about older applicants would only be aggravated if the applicant's Statement of Purpose is unrealistic or inappropriate relative to their age cohort and the remaining amount of time they can expect in their career. Your statement should disclose your professional work and contributions, your interests, your goals, and your interest in the program. If it is relevant, you can talk about your career path through to this program.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/29
| 428
| 1,649
|
<issue_start>username_0: In the copyright transfer agreement of a journal there is the following sentence:
>
> "The Author warrants that the Work has not been published before in
> any form except as a preprint."
>
>
>
Nowhere do they mention ArXiv specifically, but does "published to ArXiv" fall under "published as a preprint"?<issue_comment>username_1: Usually depositing a paper in arXiv prior to journal submission does count as a preprint. Wikipedia explicitly says so...here's the wiki link: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv>.
You can check out this list of journals with preprint policy: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy>
If you posted your paper in arXiv before submitting to the journal, do inform the journal (include the link to your paper in arXiv). From your post, it seems that your journal does not have such a tight preprint policy.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> "The Author warrants that the Work has not been published before in any form except as a preprint."
>
>
>
The distinguishing characteristic of a preprint here is that it has *not been reviewed*. See also the [SHERPA/RoMEO](http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/definitions.php) definition of a pre-print.
Academic publishers want to be the first to publish a paper and give it the 'seal of approval' that it has passed review.
So what this publisher is essentially requiring is that the paper was not reviewed and accepted for publication elsewhere.
If all you did was posting your pre-print on Arxiv (or some other repository/site), you comply with the publisher's wish.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/30
| 1,142
| 4,965
|
<issue_start>username_0: A friend of mine who is doing a PhD has finished writing the first draft of her thesis. In her school, it's a common practice that a supervisor will read the first draft and then provide feedback and suggestions for improvement.
However, my friend's supervisor is too busy at the moment and explicitly says that he won't be able to read her thesis in a month or so. The supervisor suggests my friend to wait for him. But, since my friend already has a job offer and wants to submit the thesis as soon as possible, the supervisor allows her to submit it now without him reading it.
When my friend was writing her thesis, she sent some chapters to her supervisor. He read some but not all of them.
My question is whether a supervisor has a responsibility to read his/her student's thesis. Moreover, should my friend submit her thesis now even her supervisor hasn't read it yet.
**Updates:**
* My friend is doing her PhD in the UK, which means the supervisor is not in the examining committee.
* My friend let her supervisor know about the job offer more than a month ago and they both agreed that the supervisor would try his best to find a time to review her thesis. However, it seems that the supervisor cannot find a time, so he lets her submit now if she wants.<issue_comment>username_1: This is just another example of some advisers bad habits. Yes, it is their responsibility to read the thesis. The supervisor is the chair of committee and receives job benefits from this thesis.
When I submitted my Masters thesis, I had two co-chairs. Unfortunately, none of them take the time to read my thesis. They said we know you have done a great job from your reports. In the defense session one of my committee members gave me a real hard time over a missing chapter of my thesis. Later I had to add that chapter. So I do not recommend sending the thesis while it is not read by the supervisor.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Have to is a strong requirement. In the US, the supervisor is almost always part of the examining committee so at some point they will have to read it. Some departments may have rules about feedback on drafts and how quickly and how much feedback supervisors can provide.
In the UK, the supervisor is almost never part of the examining committee. While I have never seen regulations prohibiting feedback, but there is more of a culture that students should stand on their own. That said, I think most supervisorsuccessful read a draft of a thesis.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_3: As mentioned, this is country and field dependent. What should be (and probably is) a universal rule is that **the supervisor should have a pretty clear idea of what is in the thesis.**
A supervisor having only met the PhD student a few times a years, who has not read any paper turned into a PhD chapter, should definitely read the thesis before accepting it is submitted to a committee, for both the sake of both PhD student and advisor.
If the supervisor had weekly meetings with the PhD student, when the details of the research where discussed, if he or she read several chapters which where compelling, then he or she might be in a position to trust the student into submitting without reading the thesis entirely (but this could be incompatible with the specifics of the field, or with its customs). He or she might also have enough clues to know he or she really has to read the thesis, depending on how the supervision went.
I would also guess that, knowing that the PhD student has a job offer (I assume, outside academia), the supervisor might be less concerned about ensuring a flawless defense and could settle more easily for a merely passing one (not that I endorse this attitude, but it seems likely).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: Ultimately, your friend has to decide for herself. But I have a tendency for submitting before starting the new job.
Your friend should keep in mind that
* it's not guaranteed that her supervisor will read it soon. Maybe, he is still very busy during the next month or even months.
* her own motivation will plummet. Her first priority will be the new job, and in particular at the beginning it will require most of her attention.
So the process can drag on for quite a while before she is finally ready to submit.
But what she should do (if she didn't do it already) is to talk with her supervisor in detail about the contents of her thesis. For every section he didn't read, she should him what material she coverst so that he can give her some feedback.
Moreover, if she feels insecure about some parts, she could ask a fellow PhD student with a basic understanding what she did to read these parts. They cannot give her feedback about the quality of the research but about the writing ("you lost me there", "the order in which you discuss things is weird").
This can be particularly helpful for the introduction and literature review.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/07/30
| 562
| 2,531
|
<issue_start>username_0: We at a company would like to publish a whitepaper to be included in the proceedings of an academic conference. The specified format requires us to list all authors together with their e-mail addresses.
One author (who did about 5% of the work) had parted ways with the company about half a year ago and had no connection with the ongoing research (or members of the research group) at all since. Thus he doesn't possess a company e-mail address any more either.
How should such a person listed among the authors? He contributed to the research, so naturally should be listed but I'd prefer to do it in a way that communicates "I have no connection with the group any more, I don't know about recent developments and if you contact me most possibly I won't be able to tell you too much useful information". Also, is it suitable to include his personal e-mail address?<issue_comment>username_1: There's no standard way for this. I don't even assume or care if all the authors of a paper are in the same group at the same institution. Some of my recent publications are half at UT Austin and half at U Buffalo. Getting this person's new email address (even if it's personal) should be fine, though it it is their personal email address, they may want to get a new email address at a new place that they only use for publication affiliations to cut down on the spam to their main personal address.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: From your question, I am concerned that you have not talked to the "author" about the manuscript. You must get permission from all authors prior to submitting a manuscript. It is not acceptable to submit a manuscript without permission from all authors nor is it acceptable to leave an author off just because they have left the group.
As for what is acceptable for an email address and affiliation, almost anything goes (as long as it is not misleading). I personally think universities and research groups should give permanent forwarding addresses to eliminate/reduce these issues.
In terms of the affliation, you should also ask the author. It is not uncommon to list an affiliation as the company/university where the work was done and provide a new corresponding address. As for email, it is common to list only the current address. This might be a new corporate email address, assuming it is appropriate. If not, a personal email or a new personal/professional email address is fine. Again, just ask the author and do what they want.
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2016/07/31
| 1,496
| 6,086
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm undergraduate student in Physics, I wonder what is the point in publishing a paper in a journal rather than arXiv ?
As far as I know, there is a fee which must be paid for publishing in a journal (It may not be valid for all journal or fields, I guess).I'm asking because If I do some publishable work on my undergrad research, what option would be more logical and advantageous ? How would they affect my future Phd admissions ?
Or if I ask my second question more generally, How would these options affect one's carrier in academia ?<issue_comment>username_1: Publishing in a journal typically means that your paper has been peer-reviewed. As far as I know arXiv does not review any papers.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Papers published in (reputable) journals are reviewed by other scientists (peer review), which usually makes it considerably more difficult to publish a paper there. By contrast papers on the ArXiv only receive a brief inspection to keep out utter crap. Thus, most academic evaluations consider only peer-reviewed publications or value them considerably higher.
Moreover, often only peer-reviewed papers are considered citable, in particular for purposes of backing up your claims. This may extend to papers that are considered certain to be eventually peer-reviewed¹, but this is unlikely to apply to your paper. As being cited (by peer-reviewed papers) is another important academic evaluation metric, this is another advantageous aspect of journal publications.
As a sidenote: There are a lot of physics journals where you can publish without a fee.
---
¹ in particular in fast-moving fields or fields with long peer review such as parts of mathematics
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: Reminder: publishing is about making (a work) public. From a link on your webpage, to a highly considered journal, the ways you make it public provide a stamp on the level of "evaluation" your work are undergone. Going through peer-view and being published in a journal means that a board of editors, generally with the help of reviewers, consider that your paper possesses sufficient potential value to stand among the other papers.
Nobody knows the actual value of a paper just published. It takes time to reveal. Journals and archives (like arxiv) serve different purposes:
* journals: they are "official", and produce indices (the infamous "impact factor") of average "values" of papers published in the journal.
* arxiv: can store preprints, set a public "first date" for a submitted paper, since peer review can take long time.
If you stick to the publishing system, you can submit your paper to a journal, and perform an arxiv upload (in accordance with the journal's rules). When it is published, you can add this mention to the arxiv page. Having a paper under review, under revision or even better published would be quite good for a PhD admission. Having a paper on arxiv only shows that you are confident enough to share your work, but does not give the same impression.
If you do not stick to the system, you can put your preprints online, and hope that the people you talk to will effectively read your papers, instead of relying on peer-review judgement done by others.
For the second question, one might consider that a huge proportion of arxiv preprints that have not been published (say, a few years later) may raise questions about the publishable quality of the work. Unless one reads them to evaluate their content (and somehow do the peer-review work that has not been done before), this is likely to cast shades on an academia career.
Unless one is a genius who does not care about evaluation, think about a recent Fields medal.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: This may sound silly and childish, but publishing in peer-reviewed, indexed journals makes all your little numbers (h-index, i10-index, and many more!) grow. These numbers, whichever way you twist it, contribute either some or a lot to acquiring funds, either in the form of someone hiring you or some institution/concern/company giving you direct research funds.
Sure, the quality of your actual work is important, and I'm not saying everyone should play the numbers game. But it seems like you can't play if you don't have the numbers.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_5: There are a number of good answers here that get at the core of your question, but I thought I would add a supplement to make the answers more general beyond Physics:
Because some fields don't use arXiv. Or indeed preprints of any sort.
Large swathes of biomedicine, for example, don't interact with arXiv in any way.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_6: I have made a similar question ([Why publish in a journal instead arxiv or in my blog?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/116166)) but questioning also motivation of publishing in journals and patent implications.
And the answers leads to that conclusions:
Publishing on a journal :
1. no earnings for me (they do)
2. no protection (industry can use my methods and may be with unethical purposes)
3. not accesible (a very wide number of people can´t pay for knowledge)
4. loss on copyrights (the knowledge can be limited for the elite)
5. I gain reputation (I´m not sure if I want that at this price)
6. **Scientist get it fast and take it seriously**
7. **Free peer reviewed**
Publishing on arxiv :
1. no earnings for me (they do)
2. no protection (industry can use my methods and may be with unethical purposes)
3. **accesible for all people that have access to internet**
4. **I preserve my copyright, I can do what I want with them**
5. I gain reputation (but bad reputation too).
6. Scientist get it fast and take it seriously (but need good endosers)
7. Free peer-reviewed (arxiv is open peer-reviewed but it can be lost in the sea)
So publishing on a journal is very similar to arxiv, but giving away rights in exchange for peer-reviews and notoriety.
By the way ... <https://www.smartsciencecareer.com/best-publication-strategy-in-science/>
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/31
| 687
| 3,136
|
<issue_start>username_0: Most scientific articles are written as if the research followed some kind of [waterfall model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model). In other words, a typical paper proceeds pretty linearly from the idea to the results to the implications of the research, hiding the fact that one thing might have lead to another in a very non-linear way.
I guess the reason for the linear format is to attempt to make the research easy to digest for others, and to keep the paper as short as possible. However, what should one do when following the standard format becomes a too large burden (e.g. excessive cross-referencing), or hides a key insight about the research process itself, which could be valuable for others to know?<issue_comment>username_1: Though most of the papers publish only mention their liner approach, some do try to mention the multiple path summery (mostly psychological research), but that's where citing comes, an author conducts his/her research in a single path with controlled conditions, and opens door to other authors to take other path.
Even if you plan to include all the possibilities of your research outcomes, you should first follow waterfall model, and just jot down other possible outcomes for future, because reaching the destination is initially lots of trial and error process.
PS: it will mostly depend on your area of research and the approach you are taking
Upvotes: -1 <issue_comment>username_2: Whatever format you choose, you have to make sure that your audience can grasp what your paper is about within the first 4 sentences, that (s)he won't get "lost" while reading your article, and that it is easy to strategically skip much of the article and still get the main message. Remember that there is way too much being published, and that it is impossible to read it all. So most articles are only quickly glanced at and are only read if you convince the reader while (s)he is glancing at your article that it is interesting. This is the benefit of the standard format of articles.
While writing your article, you are obviously convinced that your article is worth reading, but keep that reader in mind for whom your article is just one of way too many and who won't read your article very attentively.
For example, the research process almost never follows the strick linear form in which it is presented in most articles. If that deviation is somehow relevant, then you can often use footnotes to discuss that without deviating from the standard form. For things that need more room, there are (web-)appendices.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I recently fought my way through unpicking a thicket of cross-references like this. By focusing on the hourglass model (broad problem, specific problem, new contribution, specific implications, broad implications) and pruning unnecessary tangents I was able to shuffle the content around into an order without any forwards references, though doing so took me months.
Your process in producing the research and paper are not the paper's topic. I would think twice before even referring to it.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/07/31
| 609
| 2,723
|
<issue_start>username_0: In [here](http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process), they say there is a problem with results not being replicated. I know a PhD is supposed to be "original" research. But could you do a PhD solely on replicating the results of others? Especially given that there is a problem with results not being replicated, I believe you would be contributing a lot to science. Even if it is not "original research".<issue_comment>username_1: I would say it depends:
a) If in medicine, you are the first one to replicate an effect in an independent study, then you actually did something original, namely confirming the effect
b) If in physics, you refine an experimental design to verify an uncertain outcome, or clean up a measurement to exclude artifacts, and make the effect more clear, it is also something original
The rest is in the shades of what passed in the journals as "original". But I guess as long as the experiment was set up freshly (i.e. not in the same group) and had any small improvement/change (analysis method, amount of data, statistical uncertainty, control experiments) over the original it would pass in many universities for a PhD (and I will not give my personal opinion on the level or originality required for a PhD in an average university here).
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: It is the knowledge created from research that must be original and not necessarily the research topic itself. May topics of research have been revisited throughout time when advancements in technology or methods allow a greater insight into the original hypothesis and results. If your hypothesis differed from that of the original research project - such as quantifying the impact of previously unaccounted variables or applying the original knowledge to a novel application - then there is grounds for originality.
I know of a colleagues research that has been based on the results of a previous researchers contribution to knowledge. When trying to apply this knowledge to an application my colleague found certain elements from the previous research did not repeat in the manner they should. This discovery highlights the original research as non-repeatable and possibly even discredits it. These results are valid and important to the advancement of knowledge.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: In addition to the other answers: It may also be possible to produce new knowledge by using the results of other peoples' experiments and (for example) combining them in novel ways, or applying a different analysis.
Whether there is a PhD in this is something that only the advisor can answer, though.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/07/31
| 436
| 1,799
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am part of a group that wants to publish a new journal in the field of economic sciences. I am coming up with the journal name and will then register a domain in that name. But I have to be sure about distinctiveness of the name.
How can I check that the journal name has not been used by others earlier? Is there another method except googling?<issue_comment>username_1: Consult scholar databases such as Scopus, Web of Science / Journal Citation Report, Scimago...
(This in addition to googling, of course, not instead of it.)
If it's neither on Google nor on these databases, it's effectively like it has never existed.
Another thing that you may want to check is that there is no journal with the exact same name but in another language. For instance, you don't want to end up with a journal called "Annals of Mathematics" and another one called "Mathematische Annalen"; that's just unnecessarily confusing for German speakers, right?
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: You can certainly checked whether it is registered (unless it is registered only in some obscure country), but I don't have fine knowledge of where to look. However, a search on the keywords "brand registration record journal" led me to <http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/> where you can do a check through several databases.
Note that some journal use a name without having registered its name, and would thus not appear. I am not sure if it makes it ok to use that name even on a legal basis (it may not be on a practical basis: *The Annals of Mathematics* are not to be found there, but naming a new journal that way would be at best ridiculous).
In conclusion, if you want to be safe on the legal side it would probably be the job of a lawyer to advise you.
Upvotes: 1 [selected_answer]
|
2016/08/01
| 1,580
| 7,256
|
<issue_start>username_0: I would like to know how journals improve their impact score? It seems that great journals have almost always been great and second tier journals have always been second tier. How does a journal go from obscurity to highly respected?<issue_comment>username_1: You're asking two different, but related questions:
1. "How do journals improve their impact scores?"
2. "How do journals go from obscurity to highly respected?"
Those are related, but distinct questions.
For impact scores, they can begin targeting highly cited/citable papers. For example, some medical/public health journals allow for the publication of a "cohort profile" that goes over the basic recruitment strategy, underlying demographics, etc. of a cohort of patients. This paper will be cited continually by the papers that come *out* of that cohort, taking advantage of "...the details of recruitment may be found elsewhere [cite]."
One can also deliberately promote citations, for example by having lots of commentaries focusing on one or more papers in that journal. The International Journal of Epidemiology did this to great effect - while they were already publishing good papers, they were now publishing good papers and an accompanying commentary from someone fairly visible in the field.
In terms of obscurity to highly respected - by publishing and attracting high quality papers. That includes having the editorial team try to get good papers in their journals, sponsoring sessions at conferences with accompanying publications, etc.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: I am an Associate Editor with a journal that has improved its IF from a little over 1 to more than 4.5 over the past decade. Some of the things that we have done to achieve this have been:
* Better defining our unique niche within the field. Part of this has been placing an emphasis on publishing papers with finding that are generalisable across sub-fields, not specific only to a narrowly defined group of specialists.
* Publishing Position Papers that help set the standards within the field. These Position Papers are designed to help scientists in our field improve their procedures, practises and assessment of their own work. They quickly become standard references, so they receive a lot of citations themselves, but are also something we can point authors to for guidance if their work needs improving to meet the standards of our journal.
* When asking for revisions, working hard to make sure the feedback is as useful as possible and designed to help authors improve the impact of their papers. We try to get four reviews of each paper, usually including some comments from an editor about how to make the paper more impactful. The feedback that we have from authors is that, although our review process is longer than they'd like, they do find the extra feedback helps to make their papers better.
* Inviting contributions from scientists who we feel can help us to improve the profile of our journal.
* Changing the way we handle special issues. Like many journals, we used to let guest editors handle the review and acceptance of papers for special issues alone, with candidate papers taken from a group of invited authors after a workshop or major project. Now, guest editors must work with regular editors who know our standards and what we are looking for, and the opportunity to submit to the issue must be advertised generally, not just to workshop participants. We also make sure the special issue topics are broad enough to be of wide interest.
There are right ways and wrong ways to go about increasing a journal's IF. I think the above points are the right way. Some "wrong ways" that I have heard of include asking authors to cite more of the journal's previously published papers, and coming to agreements with related journals to encourage cross-citations between the two.
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_3: The general argument is to publish great articles. However, the challenge is that in many fields, authors will send their work to the most prestigious outlet that they think might accept the manuscript. So if you have a second tier journal, it will typically receive the work that has been rejected by higher ranking journals (or where the authors felt that the work would have been rejected by higher ranking journals, so they didn't bother submitting).
Here are a bunch of approaches for increasing impact factor from the ethical to the unethical.
### Ethical approaches
* **Publish quality over quantity.** Of course, a journal needs a certain number of publications per year in order to receive an impact factor. But in general, higher quality publications will receive more citations. And impact factor is a ratio of citations to publications.
* **Create belief in authors that impact factor will rise**. Having a great editorial board or being from a prestigious publisher can create a belief in authors that the impact factor will be high in the future. I've noticed this particularly for new journals that are released by established publishers or by a group of famous academics. Authors know that the journal doesn't have an impact factor yet. But that given the profile of the editorial board or publisher, it soon will be a respected journal, and therefore, it is worth submitting work to the journal.
* **Make the submission process more pleasant for authors**. A pleasant review experience will encourage people to submit their work. I.e., allow different file formats, give quick initial feedback, get good reviewers, etc.
* **Use editorial process to improve articles.** This relies on having good reviewers.
* **Make articles easier to find.** Make sure that articles are well indexed by relevant scholarly search engines.
* **Make articles free and open access or at least have a liberal copyright policy**. You want readers to be able to find your articles. Allowing authors to post copies online or making articles open access will facilitate this. Of course, author publishing fees will discourage submission.
* **Find a niche.** As @significance mentions, it can be helpful to find a niche. I.e., rather than being the 4th ranked journal on a more general topic, your journal can be the best or 2nd ranked journal or a more refined topic.
### Questionable approaches
* Delay the time between online publication and final paginated publication. I'm not sure if this works, but the idea is that by the time a paper is counted in the impact factor metric, it has already accrued citations.
* Think about types of papers that might attract more citations (e.g., reviews, special issues, etc.) and use this citation potential as a criteria for acceptance.
### Generally unethical approaches:
* Encourage authors to cite the journal. Of course, at a basic level, citing articles from a journal is an indication that the article is on topic, but this has the potential to be abused. See this discussion of [coercive citation practices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_citation).
* Encourage editors to cite articles from the journal in their other work irrespective of relevance.
* Collaborate with editors from related journals to encourage citations of each others journals
Upvotes: 4
|
2016/08/01
| 1,518
| 6,535
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have just completed my undergraduate studies in the United States this June. I have completed all degree requirements and have paid off all financial obligations. I received a scholarship for my masters for a school in Europe but I need to upload a scanned copy of my Diploma by the 15th of this month to be able to maintain the scholarship, otherwise I will lose it.
Last week I was told that the school would pre-order my diploma for me, however, when I went there today I was told that I would not be receiving my diploma until four weeks from now. None of the people working there seemed to care about my scholarship.
I understand that the school in not contractually obligated to provide me my diploma any sooner. How could I solve this problem?<issue_comment>username_1: One thing to remember about the American University system: If your school is public, it's underfunded. If it's private, it's a business. Every school will tell you that their students are top priority, but in the face of budget cuts and other things that are imo just silly, they usually aren't.
Do you have an advisor at your current school that you can connect with someone at your next program? It might be good to find a way to get them just communicating directly with each other (with you being CC'd). If not, just keep as much documentation as you can, ask via email every day, and send copies of everything to your new school. You should also have an advisor at your new school - maybe they can help advocate for you in some way.
Another thing to consider - ask a lawyer friend to draft a letter to your Undergraduate institution urging them to speed things up?
Hope that helps.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: Try asking the head of your department if he can send a letter on university letterhead which states that you have received the degree and that the diploma will be available after (give date). If they won't accept that, perhaps the head of your department can get someone associated with the school itself (Dean?) to do so.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Calm down
=========
Getting angry at your university and/or its staff is tempting but solves nothing; if anything, it will make them less inclined to help you. Focus on solving the problem and being respectful to everybody, even if you don't want to.
In particular, it will help to act as if everybody involved is doing their best in good faith to help you, but may be unable or unsure how to do so. Don't treat them as though they're just trying to obstruct you, even if it seems like they are. Don't focus on the amount of tuition money you've spent; that's not going to seem like a relevant issue to anyone who can help, and it might be a distraction to you.
Understand the problem
======================
At the root of your situation is the fact that you're stuck in the middle of a cultural misunderstanding.
In US academia, the diploma is strictly a ceremonial piece of paper. Nobody uses it for anything except to hang on the wall. If you want an official document that verifies your degree, you get a transcript instead.
As such, within this academic culture, there is no reason why anybody should be in a hurry to get a diploma, so university systems won't be set up to provide it on any particular timeframe; they'll schedule production of the diplomas in a way that is most convenient and cost-effective for the institution. This most likely means producing them as a single batch, perhaps by an outside contractor. Trying to do one as a one-off may well be quite expensive and/or a major disruption to their existing process. It's not necessarily a simple procedure that they're just putting off because they're lazy or uncaring.
However, my understanding (based in part on things I've read in this site) is that in European academia, the diploma is an important official document, which serves as the standard proof of a degree. Thus, a European institution would expect that anyone who graduates with a degree will get the diploma immediately, and the most likely reason for someone to be unable to show a diploma is that they didn't actually graduate.
I would focus on trying to help people at both universities understand this disconnect, and asking for flexibility from them in helping you navigate it.
Pursue all avenues
==================
It seems like so far, you've been focusing on trying to get your university to speed up production of your diploma. But it looks like that could be a dead end. So try something else.
They've offered a transcript and a signed letter. Take it for sure. Then, I'd try to get the European university to compromise by accepting these documents as proof of your degree, at least temporarily. Try to explain to them that these are the standard documents that US universities expect to create and see.
Get faculty involved
====================
It sounds like so far, you've been trying to negotiate directly with administrative offices on both sides. That's a good place to start, but at the end of the day, they don't have the same investment in your academic success that faculty do.
I'd look for any faculty at your current university who know you, and who might be able to make an impression with a letter to the European institution. For instance, is there anyone with contacts at the European university, or who at least is familiar with the academic system in that country? They might be able to help convince them to accept your alternative documents.
Likewise, get in touch with faculty in the European department; either someone in charge of your specific graduate program, or some other faculty member who you've had contact with. (If it's someone who has some familiarity with US academia, all the better.) Make sure they understand that this issue, if not resolved, might prevent you from attending their university at all. They went to the trouble to accept and recruit you; they'll be very disappointed if bureaucratic issues wreck it all. So they have an incentive to help.
Have a backup plan
==================
Although hopefully you'll be able to get this resolved, there's always a chance that you might not. Life isn't perfect or fair, and unfortunate things happen sometimes. But your life will go on. Make a general plan as to what you will do if this problem can't be resolved and you don't get the scholarship. Attend a different program? Take a year off and apply again in a year? Follow a different path entirely?
Upvotes: 4 [selected_answer]
|
2016/08/01
| 925
| 3,903
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am an assistant professor in a business discipline. A couple of months ago, I came across (through casual chat) that a senior colleague of mine plans to pursue a research idea that I myself was also planning to pursue. I asked whether I could join her and her co-author on the project and she declined. But she said I could work on it myself. We didn't share any details of our thoughts afterwards. So we don't know what exactly each other's research question and progress on the project.
I went ahead and explored the project with the research question I had in mind. Now I have a finished draft of my work. I don't know the status of my colleague's project.
Now I would like to submit my paper to a journal. But I am not sure whether I should publicize it by e.g. posting it online/on my website. I am afraid that my senior colleague (she will be on my tenure committee) will be pissed off if I do so. She may think that I am scooping her. On the other hand, without publicizing it, people in my field (or potential referees of my paper) will not know that this work is mine and the paper may not get exposure/comments (which may not be critical).
What should I do? I don't think I have done anything unethical, but somehow I feel that I am stuck in a dilemma.<issue_comment>username_1: The fact that the colleague in question will be on your tenure committee seems to, on the surface, complicate matters. However, it's not like you had a conversation with her, made no mention of a possible collaboration, and took the idea and ran with it:
You reached out to her by proposing a collaboration on the research topic, **which she declined.**
Thus you should do with your manuscript whatever is normal in your field to disseminate the ideas contained in your paper; e.g., submit your paper for peer review, post the manuscript on your webpage/upload the manuscript to a preprint server (if this is normal in your field/OK with where you plan on submitting your manuscript), etc.
Also, if your conversation with your colleague was key in your research progress on the topic, then I think an acknowledgment in your manuscript stating that fact would be appropriate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: From your comments, it seems that this is not specifically relevant here, but if you are on reasonably good terms with your colleague who you know is working on a related paper you could offer to try to arrange simultaneous publication. In this situation you both submit your papers at the same time to the same journal and include this information in your cover letters. In my experience (having done this a few times) journal editors are very open to this and are willing to work with you, and it can be good for your relationship with your colleagues -- showing that you're eager to be cooperative while still not being scooped.
Of course, there are many potential problems with this. In one case we'd agreed to co-submit with some colleagues, but had overestimated our progress and were a few weeks behind them. They held on to theirs for a little while but we told them not to worry about it, and they ended up beating us into publication by a month or so; but we remained on good terms and I think we all appreciated the others good will and cooperation. Similarly, one paper may need more rounds of review than another, or one may be accepted while the other is rejected. But the main point is the initial presumption of good will, and the rest is more or less out of your hands.
However, this really is only a real consideration when (1) you know the other group is at a very similar state, (2) you're both on good terms, and (3) want to remain that way. In the specific case here, even if (3) is true, (1) doesn't seem to be and (2) seems dubious. In this case, following your field's normal publication-type process seems very reasonable.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/08/01
| 842
| 3,588
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am applying to a PhD program at my alma mater this fall, and I am trying to make my application as strong as possible. A friend who went through the program suggested that having people lined up to be on my dissertation committee before I applied would help my application.
I have a professor who has agreed to be my advisor if I am admitted, and another professor who has agreed to be on my committee if I am admitted.
I have a meeting with a third professor next week that I have never met before, but was introduced to by another professor. Aspects of his work are very similar to my interests, and I would love if he would be the third person on my committee, but I don't know how to go about asking if he would be willing when we meet.
>
> Do you have any advice on how to approach this meeting and this professor? How much will having all three professors necessary for my thesis committee on board when I apply help my application?
>
>
><issue_comment>username_1: The fact that the colleague in question will be on your tenure committee seems to, on the surface, complicate matters. However, it's not like you had a conversation with her, made no mention of a possible collaboration, and took the idea and ran with it:
You reached out to her by proposing a collaboration on the research topic, **which she declined.**
Thus you should do with your manuscript whatever is normal in your field to disseminate the ideas contained in your paper; e.g., submit your paper for peer review, post the manuscript on your webpage/upload the manuscript to a preprint server (if this is normal in your field/OK with where you plan on submitting your manuscript), etc.
Also, if your conversation with your colleague was key in your research progress on the topic, then I think an acknowledgment in your manuscript stating that fact would be appropriate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: From your comments, it seems that this is not specifically relevant here, but if you are on reasonably good terms with your colleague who you know is working on a related paper you could offer to try to arrange simultaneous publication. In this situation you both submit your papers at the same time to the same journal and include this information in your cover letters. In my experience (having done this a few times) journal editors are very open to this and are willing to work with you, and it can be good for your relationship with your colleagues -- showing that you're eager to be cooperative while still not being scooped.
Of course, there are many potential problems with this. In one case we'd agreed to co-submit with some colleagues, but had overestimated our progress and were a few weeks behind them. They held on to theirs for a little while but we told them not to worry about it, and they ended up beating us into publication by a month or so; but we remained on good terms and I think we all appreciated the others good will and cooperation. Similarly, one paper may need more rounds of review than another, or one may be accepted while the other is rejected. But the main point is the initial presumption of good will, and the rest is more or less out of your hands.
However, this really is only a real consideration when (1) you know the other group is at a very similar state, (2) you're both on good terms, and (3) want to remain that way. In the specific case here, even if (3) is true, (1) doesn't seem to be and (2) seems dubious. In this case, following your field's normal publication-type process seems very reasonable.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/08/01
| 1,010
| 4,250
|
<issue_start>username_0: I love pure math and currently I am at a very low ranked US math PhD programme. My area is Complex and Algebraic Geometry which I love it. But, after some semesters of being a TA, I realized that I detest teaching. Repeating and repeating again. And furthermore, having to deal with those annoying undergrads is horrible.
I really love my research subject, but since I am in a very low ranked US PhD programme at an unknown state university, with probability zero I will get a research job or even a postdoc. What non-academic options do I have after finishing? I do not mind going back to my homecountry, but the only alternatives I have there(Latin America) are working in a Bakery again, which I did during my undergrad, or sell drugs or being a smuggler. I will not even get a faculty position because I detest teaching and my PhD school is very low ranked. I could not get into a math PhD programme in my country nor Spain nor Brazil, so I got into my actual PhD school.
What should I do? Any advice besides learning programming or finance, well I may not have enough time since in my programme all TAs are overloded with work. Thank you very much.
The only reason I remain is for my own self esteem mostly and because I love pure maths; otherwise I would quit. Having said that, I have no issues selling drugs, it is just not to hurt my grandmother, who raised me, that I am looking for an alternative. She made a lot of effort and worked hard so I could finish High school. But I would do anything for not ending up as a lecturer in a crappy community college or another unknown state U or U in my country.<issue_comment>username_1: The fact that the colleague in question will be on your tenure committee seems to, on the surface, complicate matters. However, it's not like you had a conversation with her, made no mention of a possible collaboration, and took the idea and ran with it:
You reached out to her by proposing a collaboration on the research topic, **which she declined.**
Thus you should do with your manuscript whatever is normal in your field to disseminate the ideas contained in your paper; e.g., submit your paper for peer review, post the manuscript on your webpage/upload the manuscript to a preprint server (if this is normal in your field/OK with where you plan on submitting your manuscript), etc.
Also, if your conversation with your colleague was key in your research progress on the topic, then I think an acknowledgment in your manuscript stating that fact would be appropriate.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: From your comments, it seems that this is not specifically relevant here, but if you are on reasonably good terms with your colleague who you know is working on a related paper you could offer to try to arrange simultaneous publication. In this situation you both submit your papers at the same time to the same journal and include this information in your cover letters. In my experience (having done this a few times) journal editors are very open to this and are willing to work with you, and it can be good for your relationship with your colleagues -- showing that you're eager to be cooperative while still not being scooped.
Of course, there are many potential problems with this. In one case we'd agreed to co-submit with some colleagues, but had overestimated our progress and were a few weeks behind them. They held on to theirs for a little while but we told them not to worry about it, and they ended up beating us into publication by a month or so; but we remained on good terms and I think we all appreciated the others good will and cooperation. Similarly, one paper may need more rounds of review than another, or one may be accepted while the other is rejected. But the main point is the initial presumption of good will, and the rest is more or less out of your hands.
However, this really is only a real consideration when (1) you know the other group is at a very similar state, (2) you're both on good terms, and (3) want to remain that way. In the specific case here, even if (3) is true, (1) doesn't seem to be and (2) seems dubious. In this case, following your field's normal publication-type process seems very reasonable.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/08/01
| 1,796
| 7,886
|
<issue_start>username_0: This past term, I was teaching in a collaborative classroom where students sit together at round tables. This works well for in-class activities and peer learning, but is the not exactly the best configuration on the day of a midterm or final.
Concerned that some students might have wandering eyes – either inadvertently, or perhaps even intentionally – I came up with something that might help. Several of the exam questions required some basic arithmetic, so I made three different copies of the exam, where the numbers in the word problems varied a little bit. (Each version's problem was solved the same way, but the end result would be different.)
Later, I was talking with my daughter about what I had done. She asked me if I told the students that not everyone was getting the exact same test. (I had not.) She told me about some classes she had taken where the instructor had done this same thing, but announced it ahead of time (saying something like, "There's no sense trying to copy an answer from a neighbor, because the problems vary.") She also said that one instructor had gone so far as to print the exams on different colored sheets of paper. (My daughter assumed that all the orange tests were the same, all the blue tests were the same, etc., but that was just conjecture.)
If this makes any difference, there was already one cheating incident (or a class project) earlier in the term.
Also, I realize that it's often the "Show your work" part of an exam question that is the most important part, but that's not the case for this particular course. It's an introductory programming course, and I give small snippets of code, asking, "What does the output of this program look like?" So, for some of these questions, it would be very easy to copy an answer from another student's exam.
This made me wonder:
* Am I under any obligation to share with my students the fact that there are multiple versions of the exam? Or is it okay to remain silent about the issue?
* Is there any good reason for doing it one way or the other?<issue_comment>username_1: At some point you need to tell the students. You do not want students leaving the exam and then talking about the answers and being totally confused. For example, it is not uncommon to hear a student ask after an exam, did you get 1 kg for problem 2. If the problems are different, this is going to make the discussions confusing and prevent the students from learning after the exam. Telling them on the way out of the exam room is often not feasible, so telling them in advance is probably better.
I would also suggest instead of slightly changing the questions, is probably not the best idea. It can lead to complaints that one exam was easier/harder than another. Further, if you provide solutions, it is much more difficult since you need to pair the solution to the exact problem. An alternative for reducing cheating is to mix up the order of the questions such that one student might get 1-2-3-4-5 and another gets 5-4-3-2-1. Then students can talk about the "train problem" and the "coin flipping problem" and not question 1 or question 2.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: A trick I have seen used, and plan to put in practise where suitable, is to make students use (parts of) a unique identifying number as the initial factor or exponent in the question.
For example, universities often have nine-digit student numbers which are ideal for being encoded in a computer science or mathematics question, especially where it is knowledge of a process or algorithm being tested, or the answers can be easily formulated from just the number *provided the techniques applied are correct and accurate*.
This allows students to study or even work together on an assignment/test, speaking generally about techniques and concepts that are relevant, without being able to directly share answers unless they do all the work together - in which case you have explicit collusion. In my experience this is a lot easier to find and a lot easier to penalise - because you can never quite judge whether Student A was exposing answers or Student B was copying without their knowledge, or that they had a system going, if they simply present the same answers from the same question.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Making different versions of the exam is standard practice in a lot universities when physical barriers against cheating are not available, when students take the test in different moments or with take away exams or homework.
Provided that difference of versions is not noticeable at first sight, not telling the students in advance won't harm honest students, but it will make dishonest students to unsuccessfully cheat in a way that will be easily noticeable - probably some students will produce the answer to their neighbours'questions. Therefore, I don't see an ethical problem in not telling them.
In the end it depends on what is your goal: If you want to catch dishonest students cheating, don't tell them, but if you prefer discouraging dishonest students from trying to cheat, tell them. When faced with that dilemma I usually choose the later.
Of course, by telling them you will give cheaters some useful information on how to cheat, but that should be addressed in another way.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_4: (1) You are under no such obligation.
(2a) If they know ahead of time, they will not even try.
(2b) If they do not know, you will be able to directly detect copying-from-neighbours and have the offender punished.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_5: There are two possible motivations for your actions:
1. You wish to catch and punish students who you suspect to be cheating.
2. You want to disincentivize students from cheating, as they will learn more by studying and taking the exam on their own.
If your main goal is 2 (which I believe to be a better motivation), then surely the best course of action is to tell the students far ahead of time that there will be several different versions of the exam and that it will be fruitless to try and copy off their neighbors. That way, students will know not to copy, and may invest more time into studying for the test and thus learn more. (More cynically, it may encourage them to find other ways to cheat, though you may find ways to deter other common methods. Honestly, even if they try and cheat by making a "cheat sheet," at least they'll accidentally study in the process).
If your main goal is 1, then yes, not telling the students in advance is certainly optimal. Be careful what you wish for, though, as failing many of your students (perhaps more than you expect) might open quite the can of worms.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_6: Here's a late answer, based on the fact that in the time since the OP was originally posted, I started giving tests in a computer lab, via our school's LMS, and in part making use of random-block questions that randomly pull from a larger testbank. Among the advantages are that every test is a unique combination of questions, and that this structure can remain fixed between semesters: we always get unique tests without any extra effort from the instructor.
I'm broadly in favor of making these things transparent, or at least not intentionally obscured from the students. What I've done is put a written note in my syllabus testing policy, "Tests may be randomly differentiated among students." This just happens to be in the middle of one of several paragraphs; my broad assumption is that none of my students read it intelligibly in advance. I assume if students communicate it will be obvious after the first test this is happening.
To date (after 3 years) I've never gotten an inquiry or complaint about this structure, so I see only upside to having it publicly documented in the syllabus.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/08/02
| 1,822
| 7,571
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate Physics and Mathematics student, who is planning to do a PhD. I have seen many PhD students on this website who are struggling to solve problems about their advisor in authorship, advising, relationship or in unethical manners, etc. and also many answers which are strongly suggesting that they shouldn't prolong the problem if it is possible and try to graduate once like they have *the power* to destroy the students all career, at least it was what I've perceived.
So, I am asking what is the power an advisor has legally or illegally over their own advisees?
Note: I couldn't find more appropriate word instead of *power* :).When I said power, I generally implied the rights the advisor have which can affect the student's PhD negatively.<issue_comment>username_1: * In many programs, the advisor signs off on the PhD student's thesis. If the advisor doesn't approve the thesis, it is difficult to impossible for the student to graduate and earn the PhD.
* In many programs, the advisor is responsible for securing funding for their PhD students. If the advisor withdraws funding that the student was expecting, the student might not have another source of financial support.
* Advisors are responsible for training and mentoring their PhD students, which is a major part of the PhD. If an advisor withholds that training, their PhD student might not become a successful researcher without it.
* In general, advisors interact closely with their PhD students. If these interactions are unpleasant or abusive, the workplace becomes very, very uncomfortable.
* Faculty tend to have a lot more influence in an academic department than their PhD students do. An advisor can potentially make things difficult for their PhD student with other faculty in the department.
* In many cases, on applying for jobs after a PhD, a student is expected to have a recommendation from their PhD advisor. Without it, it can be much more difficult to find a job. Also see: [How to handle not having my PhD advisor as a reference?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/635/how-to-handle-not-having-my-phd-advisor-as-a-reference) and [What to do when a thesis adviser refuses to recommend me?](https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/14706/what-to-do-when-a-thesis-adviser-refuses-to-recommend-me)
Upvotes: 7 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: >
> So, I am asking what is the power an advisor has legally or illegally over their own advisees?
>
>
>
[username_1's answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/73606/5845) provides a lot of the positive impact an advisor has. I will elaborate a bit more on the... darker side of the advisor power relationship.
Because unfortunately, the most common situation for recognizing this imbalance is when a student has problems.
First, and most importantly, is the following: your advisor is your boss *and* ultimately who determines if you graduate (in concert with others, but normally your advisor has the significant impact). This is unique in the graduate world compared to normal jobs because oftentimes problems with your boss/advisor that in the working world would result in quitting and moving on cannot happen the same. A PhD student that is 2-3 years into their program is much prone to suffer through problems with an advisor than a person in a more normal workplace, because if they quit they generally will lose a fair bit of the last years. Whereas in the working world, if your boss is making life miserable it often is possible to go to a different company. You likely will even benefit career wise from this! But it's quite difficult to take 2-4 years worth of graduate work with 1 advisor and get another advisor to work with. This factor gets worse the further you are in your graduate study.
What this translates to is that as the PhD student gets further into their studies, the less they can "walk" and keep their academic efforts during their graduate work meaningful.
This doesn't generally cause problems because in theory, advisor and student work together well. But when it does, it makes PhD students *feel* completely powerless.
It really isn't that advisors have so much power, per se, but they effectively are a single-person gatekeeper to a person completing a multi-year project. Unfortunately, normally by the time you find out you have advisor problems you are often far enough along that you feel the need to finish anyways. And just slog through it.
Keep in mind your goals and your advisors goals may be different. For example, your goal of graduation may be counter your advisor's goal of finishing different research projects, publishing more papers, etc.
A few examples I know of firsthand from my graduate work and interactions with other graduate students:
* Your advisor is unresponsive/slow to get back to you. Your timeline matters more to you than to your advisor, generally. In cases where you need timely responses from your advisor (whether for research guidance, paper review, dissertation approval, whatever) you may be delayed for weeks or [even months](https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/51494/5845).
* Your advisor isn't engaged in your research. When you are first starting graduate work, having some direction and mentorship is fairly important. If you don't get this, you may flounder for months or years. When you recognize this, you likely are unable to get time with your advisor and be far enough in that you feel trapped.
* Expectations to spend too much time doing non-graduation relevant work. The reality is most graduate students spend some time on non-graduation specific work - whether teaching, working on research for grants tangentially (or unrelated) related to dissertation work, etc. Good advisors help keep your time spent on things relevant to your graduation. But if you are in your 4th year and your advisor "needs" you to spend 40 hours a week teaching a class...
* Unwilling to "approve" final defense without . Normally you need your advisor's buy-in or approval in order to make your final dissertation defense. An advisor expecting more work continually or otherwise not ever being satisfied can make this process hellish, particularly if it's combined with other factors here.
These are just a few potential problems that I have seen firsthand in different advisor/student relationships. I and others could list many more. Keep in mind that you are far more likely to hear of graduate school horror stories than "I had a totally normal PhD experience, my advisor was exactly what I needed, nothing more, nothing less" stories.
Notice that most of these are not really *actionable* short of working with your advisor, either. There is an entirely different set of issues that you can pursue more formal action against, but these are all "entirely permissible" problems that are nearly impossible to resolve should your advisor not desire that.
The non-actionableness makes it a double feeling of powerlessness. Not only can the student not really quit without sacrificing potentially years of work but there is nothing they can really do about it by staying, either. Combine this with entirely normal feelings of despair, meaninglessness, and futility that are present as part of graduate work? (I'm kidding about that. But only sort of,)
The key is to understand all the issues through the advisor/advisee relationship. When you do this, it becomes easy to see how a PhD student (and masters students, though to a lesser degree) can feel completely powerless.
Upvotes: 4
|
2016/08/02
| 782
| 3,051
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have to write the definition for a term in my Paper. I find the best definition for the term in a particular paper, say paper1. I would like to quote the definition as it is in my paper. I believe this is not wrong and is not plagiarism, as I am quoting the definition with proper references. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Now, the author of paper1 in her paper cites a paper for the definition, say paper2. But in paper2 I cannot find the exact wordings which I would like to quote, or else I could have quoted from paper2.
Now how do I quote this term definition. Do I need to cite both the papers or shall I put the quote with citation of paper2 as it is from paper1, and then cite paper1.
Please advise me what is the proper convention that is followed.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, citing the original source is the way to go. As long as you cite correctly there is no need to worry about plagiarism.
Consequently, you should cite paper2. Since you cannot find the exact wording of the quote in paper1, I would suggest you paraphrase the quote and cite the original source with your own words.
This would be much better than citing the already referenced quote in paper1.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> But in paper2 I cannot find the exact wordings which I would like to quote
>
>
>
Has the paper1 author put the definition (supposedly taken from paper2) in quotes? If she has, then I *think* you may take the quoted definition from paper1, and put in footnote to the effect that "paper1 author says that this definition is from paper2, but I could not find the exact words in paper2, hence quoting as is, rather than paraphrasing".
Others more knowledgeable on this may advise.
Edit: Advice of @username_4 to put the information in the body of the paper is also very sound - especially for those cases where footnotes/endnotes are frowned upon.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Just to be clear, the important things are:
1. Cite the paper containing the definition you end up quoting;
2. If you quote something (putting in "in quotes") and attribute it, that isn't plagiarism.
If the definition is particularly lengthy, you might want to simply cite the source:
>
> "I do not consider this to be plagiarism (as defined by mwormser 2016)"
>
>
>
In your case it sounds like paper1 misquoted the definition in paper2. In this case, if the two are effectively identical, it would be best to use the wording in paper2 and cite that, but if you use the wording in paper1 you must cite that. If the altered definition in paper1 actually changes the meaning, then if it was me I'd still cite paper2 but as long as you use the correct words and cite the correct source you could use either.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If you can't find the exact term in paper 2, another approach might be to explain it in the body of your paper:
Author 1 describes [term] as 'insert definition'(Author 1 citation), referencing the work of Author 2.(Author 2 citation)
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/08/02
| 639
| 2,492
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am currently a visiting assistant professor in Computer Science in the United States. I was wondering If there are any avenues (ARC programs) for someone like me to apply for research grants in Australia.<issue_comment>username_1: In general, citing the original source is the way to go. As long as you cite correctly there is no need to worry about plagiarism.
Consequently, you should cite paper2. Since you cannot find the exact wording of the quote in paper1, I would suggest you paraphrase the quote and cite the original source with your own words.
This would be much better than citing the already referenced quote in paper1.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: >
> But in paper2 I cannot find the exact wordings which I would like to quote
>
>
>
Has the paper1 author put the definition (supposedly taken from paper2) in quotes? If she has, then I *think* you may take the quoted definition from paper1, and put in footnote to the effect that "paper1 author says that this definition is from paper2, but I could not find the exact words in paper2, hence quoting as is, rather than paraphrasing".
Others more knowledgeable on this may advise.
Edit: Advice of @username_4 to put the information in the body of the paper is also very sound - especially for those cases where footnotes/endnotes are frowned upon.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Just to be clear, the important things are:
1. Cite the paper containing the definition you end up quoting;
2. If you quote something (putting in "in quotes") and attribute it, that isn't plagiarism.
If the definition is particularly lengthy, you might want to simply cite the source:
>
> "I do not consider this to be plagiarism (as defined by mwormser 2016)"
>
>
>
In your case it sounds like paper1 misquoted the definition in paper2. In this case, if the two are effectively identical, it would be best to use the wording in paper2 and cite that, but if you use the wording in paper1 you must cite that. If the altered definition in paper1 actually changes the meaning, then if it was me I'd still cite paper2 but as long as you use the correct words and cite the correct source you could use either.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_4: If you can't find the exact term in paper 2, another approach might be to explain it in the body of your paper:
Author 1 describes [term] as 'insert definition'(Author 1 citation), referencing the work of Author 2.(Author 2 citation)
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/08/02
| 741
| 3,010
|
<issue_start>username_0: If there is a web article (or even a website) without a date of publication, is there a chance to determine a year of publication for a complete reference of it? Or should it omitted in the reference?<issue_comment>username_1: If the website does not provide a publishing date all you can do is to provide the current year when citing the web page.
A plus would be to make the page permanent using a service like <http://archive.is> or <https://perma.cc>, so that your citation would contain an item that cannot (arguably) disappear or change over time.
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: As prevalent mostly in Computer Science, while referring to websites you mention the date on which you accessed the referred link. For example, if you want to refer <http://www.example.com> on *Absolute Random Topic*, you could do it as follows
>
> [1]: *Absolute Random Topic*, <http://www.example.com> (Accessed on:
> 02/08/2016)
>
>
>
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: I usually use this site when citing websites:
<https://archive.org/web/>
It gives you information on when the page was last updated - that's about the best you can do I think (beats just putting it down as the current year anyway).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_4: **The Publication Date may be in the webpage's meta data or source**
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There may be date information contained in the [meta tags](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element) in the page source. If you are not using a tool (see below) to extract this information, you can [view the page source](https://www.google.com/search?q=view%20webpage%20source) and attempt to interpret it. There are many different ways publication date information may be stored in meta tags. The most common ones will begin with `. The number of ways in which an appropriate date may be stored in in these tags is just too numerous to cover in a single post. If you are not familiar with what these might look like, a tool (see below) to extract the data will be quite helpful.`
Extracting the date from meta tags, and picking the correct date (there may be several), can be complex. How, exactly, to do so varies from website to website. In addition, each site may change their format from time to time. If you are going to be referencing more than one or two webpages a well maintained tool to extract the reference information will be very helpful.
As an example, [this page](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-14/bank-of-japan-should-quit-while-it-s-ahead-says-hayakawa) (randomly selected for testing some time ago), which does not display a date if you have JavaScript turned off (dates are displayed if JavaScript is turned on), contains *appropriate* publication dates in the following tags (there are more tags that contain dates that are not appropriate):
```
```
That page also contains the publication and update dates located in multiple
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]
|
2016/08/02
| 764
| 3,349
|
<issue_start>username_0: For a study, we sent out a questionnaire to members of the general public. The questionnaire was containing items related to well-being and happiness, among other items that are completely related to my field (computer science).
One respondent wrote about having suicidal thoughts because of personal issues. No signs of seeking treatment in the reply.
The participant left their e-mail address in the field "contact me back for the results and/or further clarifications".
What is my role here as a researcher? My first thought was to contact the participant and pointing them to seeking help (maybe also providing links to their national suicide prevention programs).<issue_comment>username_1: I know I've read something in a research textbook about unexpected ethics problems, but I don't remember where or what it said.
I think you need to contact your ethics committee (or equivalent), preferably quickly, for guidance. If there were enough questions about welfare on the questionnaire to be likely to bring up some sort of similar response, you should probably think about pre-empting it next time and automatically including links to suitable resources. It may be that now you can send out details to all participants (those who left email addresses, or perhaps the original distribution list, depending on how participants were recruited), as a way of offering help without singling them out. If the wording of the email address field requires it (I can't quite make sense of it), you could perhaps do so together with the results of the research, or a preliminary summary of the results...
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: There is clearly a sign that this person is deliberately reaching out to you... Why else would they say what they did and include an email? I agree in getting advice from your ethics people, but don't waste time... However, keep in mind you are committing yourself once you contact this individual so be prepared to offer resources for them, such as a way to contact a free mental health clinic in their area....
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: Your work should have been approved (including being classified as exempt) by an institutional review board (IRB). You say
>
> no IRB/ERB at the institution I worked for when the study was executed. It is actually quite rare to find one in small and/or technical universities.
>
>
>
This is actually not a valid excuse. You should have gone to an outside IRB if your university does not have one.
I would classify this a response indicating suicidal tendencies as an [adverse event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_event). Adverse events include both "events" like a subject dyeing and abnormal findings on tests (e.g., a blood test or an eye test). Further, since it is life threatening, it is a serious adverse event. Finally, since you did not predict this outcome, it would be classified as an unexpected adverse event. The safest route in the face of an unexpected serious adverse event is to immediately halt the study and contact the IRB.
You are also required to provide subjects who experience an adverse event (both expected or unexpected) with appropriate care (i.e., if a subject has a heart attack, you need to call an ambulance). In this case, this means contacting someone in mental health.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/08/02
| 942
| 4,287
|
<issue_start>username_0: It is clear how a conclusion is necessary for an original research article as it summarized the main aspects of the procedure, experimental results, or inferences drawn from the results. But in a survey or review paper, is it necessary?
From the many survey papers I've read, not all of it include an explicit *Conclusion* section. Some very good surveys and reviews do end with *Furture*, others with *Open problems*. It can be noticed that the people who differ from the norm do seem to be have established reputation in their field.
Provided the paper includes a detailed *Discussion* section, just how necessary is it to have a *Conclusion* section in a survey/review paper from the viewpoint of a reviewer (not as a reader)?<issue_comment>username_1: A good review article makes part of its contribution by doing synthesis, even theory building, as part of the paper. So I would expect you to summarise that contribution. If you don't like calling that a Conclusion, you can call it a Summary. But you should expect a reader to learn something from any article you write; a review just relies almost exclusively on other writers for evidence, instead of just mostly like in the case of ordinary science.
Upvotes: 3 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: There are at least three aspects to your questions, which I will address distinctly:
* **Does a literature review article need an explicit conclusion session?** Yes, it does. A conclusion section should be present in most scholarly works (at least in the social sciences, with which I am familiar), including literature reviews. Particularly for a literature review article, the conclusion should include:
+ A summary of the contents entire article
+ Focused highlights of the most important contributions of the article
+ Limitations of the article (not necessarily weaknesses, but also a clear statement of the boundaries of applicability or generalizability of the article, for example, this literature review covers only this subset of the literature, but not another related but distinct subset)
+ Suggested future work that could be done
+ A final rhetorical paragraph to leave the reader with something of impact
* **Why don't some literature review articles by "big shot" authors include a conclusion section?** There is no general answer to that, since it is a particularity of each specific peer review process. It could be, as you seem to hint at, that because they are "big shots", the reviewers (if not blind) or editors let them get away with it, but I doubt that would be the case. The "big shot" effect might let them get away with publishing a weak article, but it wouldn't stop reviewers or editors requesting a conclusion section if they think one is needed. I doubt they would make a distinction in requesting such a section based on whether or not the author is a "big shot". Have you really systematically examined enough articles to draw a hypothesis that big shots don't have to include conclusion sections, but little shots always have to? Perhaps you only noticed that big shots get away with this because you mostly read big shots' literature reviews--I don't know; this is just a conjecture.
* **Do peer-reviewers of a literature review article require an explicit conclusion section?** Again, there is no general answer to that, since it is a particularity of each specific peer review process. In my response to the question of whether it is needed, I definitely say yes, and when I review literature review articles, I would definitely request a conclusion section if it were missing. However, as you have noted, some reviewers and even some editors do not request or require this. Just because I think it is important doesn't mean that everyone also thinks so.
**The bottom line:** If you want to know what to do for your own manuscripts that you submit for consideration for publication, then definitely do include a conclusion (my outline above is a suggestion of what to focus on). I think it would be highly unlikely that if you include a conclusion section, anyone would ask you to remove it. I think it would be far more likely that if you do not include one, you might be asked to add one (for example, if they ask me to review it :-) ).
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/08/02
| 1,149
| 4,784
|
<issue_start>username_0: I just finished my BSc Hons. in Mathematics and CS from one of the leading research institutes in India (Not IITs). Now I'm going to continue my masters in CS. I like ML. But I haven't done any proper course. I wish to apply for PhD in this area. Can anybody tell me a detailed idea about the courses that I need to take so that I can apply for PhD in US or Europe?<issue_comment>username_1: >
> Can anybody tell me a detailed idea about the courses that I need to take so that I can apply for PhD in US or Europe ?
>
>
>
PhD programmes in the US and Europe are significantly different. While a PhD in Europe expects you to have a fair idea of what you intend to research, the US universities allow you to take courses to learn - quite similar to what the IITs follow.
What courses to take largely depends on where you are studying, right? You cannot take a course if it is not offered.
An example Data Analytics course is at <https://volgenau.gmu.edu/program/view/20521>
Basically, you want to learn a couple of programming languages - Python (with scikit-learn) is good, take a course on statistics (and learn R programming). A core course in Machine Learning (teaching decision trees, neural networks, clustering etc.) and few courses on database systems. You need to know SQL and also NoSQL systems. Try MySQL and MongoDB, for example. These should generally give you the pre-requisites.
Also, just learning theory is not enough - one needs to also do practical work. For that, I would suggest learning Linux and having the ability to spin up VMs and setup a system with Hadoop etc. Cloudera provides a VM to get started, and so does MapR. Virtualbox is a good free virtualisation software.
You also need to decide what field of ML you want to go in further. This would depend on whay you want to learn ML - the reasons would be your own. Of teh sub-fields one could look at pattern recognition, audio recognition, predictive analytics, classification systems etc. You should then do your Masters work on that. IMHO, it would make sense to look at small, real world problems and try to solve them with ML to build a portfolio, then tackling something huge. If you are able to solve small but significant real-world issues, you would have a much better chance of landing the paid scholarship.
To get an idea about opportunities available in the UK, you can join the <EMAIL> mailing list. Social media researchers can join mailing lists of the Association of Internet Researchers at <http://aoir.org>
*Note: Before or after down-voting this answer please leave some rationale as to why you do not think this is appropriate advice*.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Look at specific program requirements. PhD programs in the US are designed to teach you what you need to know, for the most part. Your job is to become comfortable with CS and some stats before you enter. For example, here is what <NAME>ellon posts as their 'requirements' for entering the PhD program:
' *Unofficially, we recommend a high level of comfort with math (particularly linear algebra, probability, and proofs) and computer programming (at the level of an undergraduate degree in computer science, although many of our applicants get the necessary experience without majoring in CS). It is possible to fill in some of this background on the fly, but you will be working hard to do so! In addition, the program is very competitive, so successful applications always stand out in some way from their peers -- for example grades, research experience, or recommendation letters.*'
I think username_1's advice is very applicable to those with MS looking to find an industry job. For academia, it will depend more on your sub-field, like SACHIN says. For example, if you go into academic epidemiology, you may never have to write a line of SQL. If you get a job as a bioinformatics data scientist, you almost absolutely will.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_3: Aside from having a general background in Math and CS (which you do), PhD programs often ask why you want to join. When you say "I like ML" it is useful to be able to justify your claim. It doesn't have to be a formal course but having some familiarity with the subject will most certainly help. I recommend doing an online course to get a feel for the area & decide what exactly you might want to work with (you can change your decision later but you should have some concrete ideas/examples in your head).
I learned ML on [Coursera](https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning) and highly recommend it (the class is taught by <NAME>, one of Coursera's cofounders). However, there are many other courses, so pick the one that appeals to you the most. Good luck!
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/08/03
| 535
| 2,133
|
<issue_start>username_0: What is an acceptable way to state that you are very happy to have been offered funding for a research proposal?
"I am honored to have this offer of funding for my research"
"I am grateful for this offer..."
etc
Neither of those sound right to me -- research funding is about having a sound and interesting proposal, so feeling honored or grateful doesn't ring true to me. I've been wondering this for a while but I now have a research fellowship offer I need to decline (already took an earlier offer) so I want to make sure my declination does not sound unappreciative.
I know this issue may seem simple or pedestrian to some, but I'd like to know how most would reply to know I'm meeting the expectations of program officers, etc.
Thanks!<issue_comment>username_1: >
> I received your offer for research funding. While I am honored and
> greatly appreciate your offer, I must regrettably decline as I have
> accepted another source of funding.
>
>
> Thank you for your kind consideration.
>
>
> [salutation, like Sincerely]
>
>
> [signed]
>
>
>
Keep it simple, short, polite, and professional. If you are in a country where overstatement is important, throw in a "very" and/or a "deeply" to conform to your norms.
You might want something more personal only if someone was literally offering to write you a personal check to pay for your research out of their own account. Otherwise accepting/declining an offer (and applying to multiple programs which all have the same deadlines) is the norm - so don't worry about it.
Simple, short, polite, and professional.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: I would just say something like. "Thank you very much for your offer of funding, I am extremely grateful. Unfortunately I have already accepted another offer which is not compatible, so I must decline your offer."
The important thing is to **show respect for the agency by replying as soon as you can**, so that another deserving candidate can get the funding. Don't worry that much about the phrasing, everyone knows these things happen, just be polite.
Upvotes: 2 [selected_answer]
|
2016/08/03
| 634
| 2,576
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am using a number of equations from a different paper. I am using those to derive another quantity.
Is it appropriate to just mention them one after another, without stating the assumptions behind the equations etc, since I am already citing the previous paper like
Equation 1 -- (1)
Equation 2 -- (2)
Equation 3 -- (3)
.
.
.
.
.
Equation 14 -- (14)
then state the physical meaning of each parameter in the above equations?
I tried looking at some example papers but couldn't find any in the particular journal I am writing for.
If it were 1 equation, it would be fine, but I am not sure how to handle so many equations.
Or should I just reference the main equation and state the rest in the supplemental section? I just read and it seems putting too many equations in a paper is not a good idea.<issue_comment>username_1: I'm not sure about the common practice in your field, but, as a mathematician, I feel that you have approached this thing from the wrong direction. You don't reuse *equations* from another paper; you reuse *theorems*. A theorem is a statement like
>
> If A and B and C are true, then equations D and E hold, where the symbol F is defined as... and G is defined as...
>
>
>
Maybe the authors of the other paper did not formulate their result as a theorem, but it is one. It is a sloppy but common habit to throw the derivation of a result in front of the reader directly, instead of first stating it then proving it.
Another important point to note is that there are hypotheses and assumptions under which these equations hold; if you focus on equations rather than on the whole 'theorem' package, this information can very easily get lost.
So, my suggestion is: reformulate those results as theorems. It could be a single theorem with 14 separate equations as the thesis, if they are all related.
If the word *theorem* sounds too pompous, use *proposition*. If your result seems too simple to deserve this name, use *lemma*.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: My suggestion is to use the main equation from the previous work and for the others refer the reader to the main paper.
About explaining the equation, if you give an introduction before formulating the problem, the reader would be prepared for your idea.
Moreover, you should illustrate the coherence of the equations clearly to get interests from the readers (and especially your reviewers). The recommendation is to use the graphs and plots (visual description) to notice the reader about your idea, proofs, and results.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/08/03
| 1,307
| 5,192
|
<issue_start>username_0: I am a biomedical engineer; I was offered a PhD position in Germany. They already prepared my contract but never mentioned my salary. I was wondering if there is a polite way to ask how much will be my salary.<issue_comment>username_1: Just ask, there's nothing wrong about it. From what I know, PhD students in Germany are paid some fraction of the 'TV-L 13' bracket, about 50-70%.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_2: Just ask, using polite words. You're over-thinking this.
Upvotes: 5 <issue_comment>username_3: They will not tell you a number in Euro, as the person tasked with the hiring decision probably doesn't know the amount either. You need to ask for the paygrade and then use the calculator on [this page](http://oeffentlicher-dienst.info/tv-l/) to find the amount.
It is a very easy conversation, because neither you nor your supervisor can do anything about the payment. No negotiation, no decision making, nothing involved. You cannot say anything wrong (as in, reduce your chances for a good salary).
### How to calculate the amount from the paygrade
First, you need to know which tarif applies to you. On the page I linked, choose "TVL West" if you will work in a state of former West Germany, and "TVL Ost" if you are in former East Germany. You will see a blue calculator form in the upper right corner.
The paygrade information your boss tells you will be of the form "E13, 50%". It may have been printed on the job ad, but not always.
E13 is the "level" determined by the job's difficulty, and is fixed for the position. The rules here are so firm, I don't know if it is even possible to have a PhD research job ("wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter") at any other level than E13.
The percentage is the worktime percentage paid. It is up to the institution to decide if they are going to pay you full time, half time, or some other fraction. Paid full time is practically unheard of outside of computer science departments, biomedical should be 50% or some more. The actual time your boss expects you to be present in the office may be different from what your contract says, and it is also up to your supervisor and work to know if you will need to put in some unpaid extra hours outside of fulltime work hours. If you have a cell culture which needs to be fed every day, you might find yourself coming back to the lab on weekends too. But the money you get depends on the number in the contract, and it is simply calculated as a proportion of the money for the full time.
The calculator also asks you for a Stufe. It refers to a pay "raise" based on years of work experience. If you are a freshly minted M. Sc., you start at "1", get upgraded to "2" after one year in 1, then to 3 after two years in 2, etc, up to 6. If you have worked somewhere else before and gained relevant experience (HR judges what is relevant), you can get into a higher group, but not higher than 3 when you are changing institutions, or when you are changing the E level within the same institution.
If you are single, your "Steuerklasse" (tax classification) is I. If you are married, try "IV" for the first calculation. If you are in a civil union with a same sex partner, that also counts, but I don't know how difficult it is to get a civil union or same sex marriage from another country recognized in Germany.
You will get some extra money if you have small children, but I don't know which ages count for how much.
If you are either Catholic or Protestant, you will also pay a church tax. For this, choose the link behind "Kirchensteuer" and enter the state in which you will be working.
Leave everything else at default for the calculation, and press "berechnen".
For example: in my institution, a biology PhD always gets a 50% E13 contract, and assuming he is single, atheist and has no previous work experience, this translates to 1758.68 €, of which he takes home 1208.12 €.
Beside the Stufe for years worked, your salary will rise a little bit every year, as the whole paygrade is adjusted in a negotiation on the highest level between the provinces' governments and the trade unions. You cannot get a pay raise by negotiating with your boss, nor could he give you one if he wanted. The exception would be giving you a few more percent worktime, if you are not already at 100% and if your institution's policy allows it. This is rare and will likely require you to take on one more project beside your PhD work.
An additional payment in December is customary, but it is not as high as a regular monthly salary.
Upvotes: 6 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_4: Congrats on the position!
I'm not sure how it works in Germany (and perhaps I am wrong since other answers talk about "grades"), but in the UK we often call it "funding" rather than "salary" since the money typically comes from research councils rather than the university itself. Some PhD positions come with funding, some do not, so for me it is completely acceptable to ask.
As a PhD student myself, I would feel much more comfortable asking "will there be any funding available for this position?" rather than "what's my salary?". Hope this helps.
Upvotes: -1
|
2016/08/03
| 1,346
| 6,186
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have been working on a project for almost a year now. This project involves the implementation of a computational method to calculate material properties and the application to different material systems. I have also done original modifications to the method during the course of the implementation.
At the moment I am in the process of writing down the details of the implementation and the results of my calculations. I have envisioned that the best way to break down the large amount of work that has been done is to write three papers. Chronologically: 1) one with the improved methodology with pertinent application results, 2) another one with the implementation details and 3) a final one focusing only on application of the code to a very interesting set of systems.
I think that writing papers 2) and 3) will become easier as I can simply refer the reader for details to 1) and 1) & 2), respectively, but I am having quite a bit of trouble finding the right narrative for the first paper, since I want to focus on the big picture of the theory and methodology but the little details of the implementation seem to constantly get in the way. This comes in the way of "we are trying to achieve this big objective A but in the actual implementation we did things a little different by changing B1, B2, B3, ...". This would distract the reader from the main point and becomes extremely disruptive from the point of view of the narrative flow. But somehow, it feels wrong to leave these details out since readers would otherwise assume we use the previous approach, or would simply not know how exactly we carried out the work.
I am wondering what are useful and effective strategies to write papers that can be read smoothly when there is a lot of fine detail involved that has not been previously published.<issue_comment>username_1: My field is biomedical so comments may or may not work for you. In our works, sometimes protocols did change along the way and occasionally I need to explain that in the paper. Hopefully these comments are general enough to be useful to you.
The primary goal is to think from the gain of the reader and maximize the gain:pain ratio. You want the ratio to be high: transferring the most to them with them going through the least amount of effort to understand your work. With that reason in mind, here are some suggestions:
1. Really, very few people reading scientific journals are interested in the step by step saga in how we reach there. I know it may come off harsh but what matters to the researchers during the development process can be drastically different from what matters to the readers. So, cast a critical look and weed out details that are not bringing any gain.
2. Minimize the "we wanted to do this, but then we ended up with that..." frequency. Try not to start every single sentence with this kind of structure because they sound trivial and never-ending. Instead, I'd suggest setting up a section called "original plan" (to hint that something was changed) and give it a good introduction. Then, you can have a section called "Modifications" to briefly but sufficiently explain major design changes.
3. One device I found very effective is a graphical schematic. You can consider a graph of the original scheme. Then in the Modification section, use the first graph as blueprint, slightly grey out the contents, and then insert modified components in 100% black. Consider indexing the changes on the graph, and then in the text you can simply explain them sequentially.
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_2: Separating papers into a "here's a new method" methods development paper and "here's where we apply a new method" application paper is somewhat common. Neither paper may go to as good a journal as a combined paper would, but it's an excellent choice if the audience for the two sub-parts is different.
For example, the people who care about computational modeling and the fine details about computational modeling protocols are normally quite different than the people who care about specific applications to which the methodology can be put. Therefore, if you develop a new computational method for a particular application, it's often helpful to have one paper aimed at the computational modeling people, which goes into the nitty-gritty of the protocol but perhaps only demonstrates it with toy systems, which is sent to a computational modeling-focused journal, and then have a separate paper, which may gloss over the protocol details but focuses on the real-world application, which is sent to an applications-focused journal.
Key here, though, is that you're not really splitting up the paper arbitrarily because it's too long, you're splitting it up because the focus of each sub-paper is different.
In that sense, I don't think your proposed split is ideal. Paper 3 sounds decent as your application paper, but it sounds like Papers 1&2 might really be the same methods development paper, salami sliced for convenience. That's probably why you can't find a separate story for Paper 1 - it doesn't stand alone as a methods development paper.
That's not to say you can't split up your methods development paper, you just need to do it on a topics basis, rather than an overview/details basis. For example, can your methodology be split into solving two independent sub-problems, each of which can stand alone as its own method development paper? Or perhaps there's a problem which is a simpler general case (where you can present a simple solution), and then a more-specific instance of the general problem which permits optimization or where the general case doesn't work, which can be presented as a second paper.
Finally, there might not be a good place to split the methods paper or you may decide against it. In that case, Supplemental Information (or Supporting Material) can be your friend. Write up your methods paper (e.g. Paper 1), but put the distracting details (e.g. Paper 2) into Supplemental Information. That way you can refer to the details briefly in the text, but still have a paper that's a self-coherent unit, as you expand upon it in the SI.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/08/03
| 590
| 2,525
|
<issue_start>username_0: Heyall, just asking a question out of curiousity.
I'm a mathematics undergraduate, who likes to write quite detailed notes from textbooks as a method of revising. These notes tend to follow roughly the structure of the textbook chapters - with the same definitions, theorems, etc - but often with differing proofs and exposition. I've been told by classmates that these notes are quite useful for them for revision.
Now, I have no intention of ever turning these notes into anything other than notes - I wasn't even sure about keeping them after the exams ended - but thinking about doing so raised questions for me.
When writing a textbook, what precisely constitutes plagiarism?
For example, in an Abstract Algebra textbook, there are only so many ways to cover group theory - as far as I can tell, the only major differences between how several books I've seen cover group theory is in the exposition and superficially in the proofs and definitions.
If a mathematician was annoyed that the only textbook in his/her subfield was notoriously low on detail, and wrote a book that was very similar - with the exception that it were an easier read - would that constitute plagiarism? (If so, that seems a bit restrictive to me.)
It cannot be that textbooks only contain original research, else few textbooks on undergraduate maths could've been written in the last one hundred years.<issue_comment>username_1: When writing something which is aimed at becoming public, free or not, the rule is extremely simple: **everything** you have not created/discovered/written *all by yourself* **has to be** accompanied by a reference to the original work.
If you copied & pasted full sentences to your notes (which you could do at that time because your notes were private), you will have to either attribute them to their author(s) or rewrite them with your own words.
It is clear that the most difficult part will be to identify the sentences you have copied & pasted. IMHO, it would be easier to completely rewrite your notes while keeping the overall structure.
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_2: It's the words.
Speaking as a mathematician the formulas and calculations are all common knowledge, even if it's new to undergraduates. But the words you use to explain it need to be your own. The style you use will uniquely identify you. For examples check out <NAME>'s cosmos and <NAME> a brief history of time. Beautifully worded explanations of complex mathematics.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/08/04
| 850
| 2,928
|
<issue_start>username_0: Often, when searching Google Scholar, I get a single result with a bit of text "Showing the best result for this search. *See all results*" and I have to click on that hyperlink at the end to actually see a full set of results. **Is there any setting to automatically have that clicked so that Google Scholar displays a full set of results automatically, instead of only showing one?**
Example:
---
[](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Differentiation+and+integration+in+complex+organizations&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39)
---
I've already gone in to Google Scholar Settings and Results Per Page is set to 10; making it 20 doesn't help. Neither of those values are "1," which is what actually gets displayed.<issue_comment>username_1: Compare the contents of the address bars:
`scholar.google.com/scholar?lookup=0&q=Differentiation+and+integration+in+complex+organizations&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39`
for the full results and:
`scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Differentiation+and+integration+in+complex+organizations&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39`
where the difference is `lookup=0&` after `google.com/scholar?` and before `q=...` (though the location of the `lookup=0` bit doesn't matter so we can append `&lookup=0`
Here's a greasemonkey script (firefox) that does the job (updated to fix a couple of bugs, see below).
```
// ==UserScript==
// @name Full Scholar
// @namespace Example
// @description Add &lookup=0 to google scholar links
// @include http://scholar.google.com/scholar*
// @include https://scholar.google.com/scholar*
// @include https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar*
// @include http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar*
// @version 1
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==
var url = window.location.href;
if (! /lookup=0$/.test (url)) {
window.location.href = url + '&lookup=0';
}
```
So you need to install greasemonkey (on Chrome, apparently tampermonkey is the equivalent) and paste this is as a new script.
Bug fixes 2016-08-09:
* redirects to local google domains were broken (I've added .co.uk, substitute as required)
* some pages were broken, giving a 404 error. These didn't have `/scholar` in them, so I've added that to the URL match.
(Note, this is my first greasemonkey script and I don't really do js, so criticism appreciated)
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: I think you got a single result because your search matched the title of the article exactly.
I replicated your search and removed "and" and "in" -- and my results were significantly different than yours.
Moral of the story: try removing articles, prepositions, and other function words that are frequently part of titles but offer little in the way of content.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BDqcC.jpg)
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/08/04
| 520
| 2,285
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have a BS in math (2.9) and a MA in teaching (Pass/fail online program)
I am teaching math at a high school but now miss my college days and the upper level material. My end goal would be a PhD in Physics at a US university.
I don't have enough course work in Physics to try and apply straight to a Masters in Physics, as well as a low GPA to apply with.
What are my options? (I have ideas but am unsure as to what is realistic or worth doing)
Community college classes until I have prerequisites for physics?
Non-matriculated schooling?<issue_comment>username_1: A PhD is usually narrowed down to a *very* peculiar research topic and as such missing some education in other general areas might not be particularly dangerous for the sake of getting the PhD itself. Moreover, what matters the most when undergoing a research path is the attitude to learn and to question the scientific method more than the titles you have previously obtained, which, however, do matter when *applying for admission* to a PhD programme. Committees might prefer someone with already some background just because the selection processes usually see many applicants and Universities need a way to filter them out. A good recommendation letter goes however far beyond any selection criteria and if you can get one it should not be too difficult to enter a PhD programme. In particular, especially in Europe, GRE, GPA and all these quiz results are irrelevant for anything.
Concerning the topic itself, as you have formal background in mathematics,
do consider that many PhD in theoretical physics are essentially pure mathematics, therefore you might even find it along your lines and not too difficult to enjoy.
This said, if you want to have a good research profile and a thorough understanding of what you are doing (rather than just getting the PhD), a good knowledge of physics is fundamental. I would suggest to first achieve a master degree and only then go for a PhD (which should always be the rule, even if you manage to get admitted before).
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: If you are studying in the United States, you should take the core physics undergraduate courses from a reputable university. Then you should apply directly to PhD programs.
Upvotes: 1
|
2016/08/04
| 2,435
| 10,325
|
<issue_start>username_0: I noticed while doing practice math PhD exams that the newer exams tend to be a bit easier than the older exams. The online archive goes back about ten years or so, but I was able to dig up some old exams from the mid-80s. I was absolutely shocked. I would get wrecked if they gave me one of these. I don't even think I could finish one if they let me take it home.
I looked around at some other PhD exam records at other universities, and it seems to be an across the board thing, not just my department.
Some people I've asked about this give the explanation that PhD programs are bigger now than they used to be-- in other words, in the past, only geniuses got PhDs, and since then cretins like me have gradually wormed our way into academia and lowered standards for everybody. This would make sense, but I'm not sure if this is just something people say, or something that is actually true. People have a tendency to put the past on a pedestal, and I'm skeptical.
Another explanation I could think of would be drift in material content. Maybe they were studying different stuff back then at the same difficulty, or using different terminology to study the same thing we do now. Maybe it just seems harder to me because I'm not used to how they talk about it. A lot of PhD level material is, after all, reasonably modern.
I also wonder if exam practices used to be different-- open book, take-home, more hand waving tolerated in grading, offered at the end of the 5th year. Something?
All this is speculation, though, which I find unsatisfying. Has this actually been studied with healthy rigor and skepticism? What is the history?<issue_comment>username_1: This very much depends on the area at hand ("mathematics" is a quite general thing that comprehends many different lines). It is however generally not true that newer exams and exercises are easier: it is instead the converse, as the study, the knowledge and the level of understanding go deeper as science evolves.
Notice however that finishing (or not finishing) a test/exam is by no means indication of the level of difficulty of the topic. As an example you could be asked to manually calculate the determinant of a 1000x1000 matrix in one hour: you will never finish that on time but it is monkey job with no difficulty or understanding required; as such, do not grant deepness of knowledge according to how messy or long or cumbersome the exam tasks may be.
Moreover, the argument of "difficulty" is usually very subjective. There are no easy or hard topics, there are just topics you are not familiar with because you did not study them before. One thing that is however true is that the flavour of research has changed as the time went by and different efforts and emphasis have been put on different topics; as such, you may find yourself to have a more natural understanding and practice on some topics and aspects rather than some others.
Are those old-style-exams that you are mentioning really more difficult and intense or is it any of the above that may come into play?
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_2: I think that you've discovered a fairly good example of [credentialism and educational inflation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credentialism_and_educational_inflation). It's pretty well established at this point that over time there's a trend towards more jobs demanding higher degrees, jointly with more higher degrees being awarded. It makes sense that, for this to occur, standards are being relaxed over time. Note that this is a pretty solid evidential counterpoint to the *de rigueur* defense that an older generation always complains about a younger, or that "people have a tendency to put the past on a pedestal".
At a different level, we could demonstrate the same thing at the community college where I work. A senior faculty member has kept final exams for a variety of mathematics and computer science courses for a number of decades, and if they were lined up side-by-side there would be very clear evidence that current students would have nearly no chance at passing prior exams. In some cases what was once a one-semester course is now a two-semester sequence to cover the same material. And in the decade that I've been there, there's been a fairly public process with making general-education exams easier in an attempt to get a majority of students to pass them (maybe 4 iterations of downshifting the university-wide basic math exams by administration).
You might consider whether this discovery itself makes for a worthwhile academic paper. Personally, I'd love to see that documented and published.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_3: I believe the larger trend is that PhD programs are putting much more focus on research over coursework. Not to say that research was ever not an important component of a good PhD programs, but the importance has greatly increased over recent years in many fields.
Students are expected to start writing papers earlier and to write more papers before obtaining their PhD, which necessitates spending less time on coursework. At the same time, as research becomes more and more specialized, it becomes harder to design good courses that will be relevant to the students' future work.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_4: (In mathematics:) I'd be willing to believe that pre-college math curricula, and lower-division college (in the U.S.) curricula have become easier to get through, for reasons mentioned in other answers and comments. But I think this becomes less universally so at upper-division level (last two years of undergrad in the U.S.) and even less so with regard to the sort of "prelims" that math grad students typically do/take in the first year or two of their graduate work. This reflects my observations over the last 45 years in math in the U.S.
So then how to account for the phenomenon apparently observed by the questioner? Again in my own direct experience, decades ago there were impulses to ask "interesting/challenging" questions on prelims, that even the other exam-writers might not be able to do. Some contest-like spirit, resembling the old Tripos in the UK? At the same time, again somewhat contest-like, the questions were at a lower mathematical level than nowadays. This, combined with the impulse to ask challenging questions, led to many Baroque, Rube-Goldberg-like questions whose statement alone might be difficult to parse, and whose relation with any known mathematics was unclear. E.g., very complicated questions about iterated operations in point-set topology, with delicate separation assumptions? Difficult questions about proving that a bunch of relations in a group implies another one?
After a decade or so of that kind of thing, it was apparent to *me* that such exams did not encourage forward-looking study on the part of the students, which was a bad thing. Often, as in prep for contests, some amusing tricks were learned, but basic, standard, *useful* more-advanced ideas were neglected entirely because they'd never show up on those exams. Thus, around 1989, we deliberately changed the nature of those exams to address less-tricky, higher-level mathematics that would actually be used by people in doing their PhD work. Another attitudinal change has been within the last 10 years, when we have moved completely away from surprise/tricky questions at any level.
At least at my own University, it's not at all the case that basic graduate education is being diminished in favor of supposedly jumping into research immediately. As in some comments above, it's not feasible to really start *doing* modern mathematics research while not knowing anything... But, yes, we do try to encourage a more active version of engagement than merely "fulfilling requirements" (even while those "requirements" are aimed to be *useful*).
So, in the end, I'd argue (as in other comments) that the exams are not truly easier, but just "modernized", so that some acclimitization to modern mathematics makes them *seem* easier in our context.
(And, yes, I recognize that in fact some grad programs in math have "thinned" their prelim requirements, apparently motivated by "getting students into research faster", but it is not clear to me that this can truly accomplish the avowed goals... though I am equally confident that programs would be disinclined to candidly discuss such a thing. The ever-increasing commodification of "research" does provide considerable pressure to degrade things...)
Upvotes: 4 <issue_comment>username_5: Speaking as a physics grad you can clearly observe this trend in our quals as well. For example UIUC has an archive with exams going back to 1995:<https://physics.illinois.edu/academics/graduates/qual-archive>. You can see a clear trend of the difficulty going down. Princeton's are still hard though but they seem to take the difficulty of their qual as a point of pride.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_6: I agree with this trend from physics, though my specific program has increased in prestige over time so it was less noticeable.
I don't think it's that people now are less innately talented or genius. The number of people getting physics phds has gone up, but access has also significantly increased. It reminds me of the quote by Gould: "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops."
The thing is, education hasn't really kept pace with the increase in access. The people who went to grad school 40 years ago generally came from a class that gave then the best education money could buy. I struggled through undergrad upper division classes with 100+ students, and professors who had no idea who I was.
I think education got worse, but I'm not convinced the talent has decreased (though there are reasons to believe it may have, such things are very hard to measure).
Upvotes: 1 <issue_comment>username_7: I don't really agree with this, I have looked at qualifying exams from the 60s and their difficulty was less, or at least their assumed background was less. For example, many only tested on an understanding of advanced calculus instead of measure theory. Todays exams are far more indepth.
Upvotes: 2
|
2016/08/04
| 1,006
| 4,121
|
<issue_start>username_0: I have created several images for Wikipedia and would like to use them for my own poster/talks as well. However I am concerned that my colleagues will assume that I took them from Wikipedia and will consider it bad practice to use images from Wikipedia instead of my own and secondly to not reference them. How would you clarify that?<issue_comment>username_1: I think the problem here is that you (a) don't feel like you should be citing the source of this, since you made it yourself but (b) think this will be viewed as plagiarism from Wiki (or, at least, laziness). It seems to me the best way to resolve this is to cite your source, and cite it as yourself via Wikipedia. A short note like (Wikipedia, Original Artist <NAME>) makes it clear that yes, this is the image from the Wiki page but also that you made it.
Upvotes: 5 [selected_answer]<issue_comment>username_2: When using images from Wikimedia Commons (where they are usually actually hosted) you have to consider two aspects: (i) the license, (ii) scientific citation rules.
(i) is not an issue if you are the creator of the image and it is an original work (and not a derivative of another work). You have not granted rights to Wikipedia for exclusive use of your work (as you would to a journal). Therefore, you don't need permission to use your own images. In practice, you'd need to be able to prove that you are the creator, but if you still have the log-in of the user account that's not a problem. It's even easier if you have released the images into the public domain. If your image is derivative work, the license of the original work(s) applies.
Since you have published the images on Wikimedia Commons and apparently have added them to a Wikipedia article, I would interpret (ii) as requiring self-citation in the same way as if you had used the images in a previous scientific publication of yours.
Obviously, this means that you can't keep the anonymity of your Wikimedia user account, but that doesn't seem to be a concern for you. If it was a concern, you would need to cite it as someone else's work and also follow the requirements of the license.
Thus, I would cite the source like this (adjust to your style):
>
> Image contributed to Wikimedia Commons by me using the pseudonym
> "Jannick". First used in Wikipedia article "Very important topic" (2015).
>
>
>
Finally let me say that I consider contribution to a free encyclopedia such as Wikipedia a laudable effort. If I saw something like this in a talk or on a poster, I would regard it favorably. However, there are possibly people that consider contribution to Wikipedia wasted effort that would be spent better on writing scientific publications. Decide for yourself if you care about their opinion (I don't).
Upvotes: 3 <issue_comment>username_3: "Image: Author." or similar.
So long as the license granted to Wikipedia is a nonexclusive one (and I would be very surprised if that isn't the case) there's no need to bring them into it at all.
Just show the image, attributed to yourself.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_4: Good question, but one part is not entirely clear: do you prefer to remain anonymous/pseudonymous on Wikipedia?
If you don't care, the best solution is to log into your account, and update the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons page to reflect your full name. [Here](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ward_Cunningham_with_Hypercard_stack.jpg#Licensing "Here") is an example of the best code to do that, at least on Commons.
If you *do* prefer to remain anonymous, your problem substantially results from your having contradictory wishes: on the one hand, you don't want the general public to link your Wikipedia avatar with your real-world identity, while on the other hand, you *do* want a loosely-defined subset of the general public to make that link. So, the more broadly you communicate the full story, the more you risk "outing" yourself to the general public. There's no "right answer," as any answer will require a judgment call on your part, of how much risk you're willing to endure.
Upvotes: 0
|
2016/08/04
| 378
| 1,675
|
<issue_start>username_0: On this website, there are 120 questions tagged [citation-style](/questions/tagged/citation-style "show questions tagged 'citation-style'"), and probably many more without the tag (a search for APA returns 244 results).
I work in applied mathematics, and among my colleagues the general approach to citation styles varies between "it doesn't matter as long as it's consistent" and "I use Bibtex and that's it; frankly I don't even know how this style is called".
**Why is citation style considered important** in other fields and receives so much interest? What is it that I am missing?<issue_comment>username_1: There are styles because otherwise it would be a complete mess. I speculate that it has to do with the way archiving and indexing of publications are done in a given library/institution/society, and the type of publications in the field (peer-reviewed articles vs book chapters): in some fields you may retrieve a publication with Journal + Volume + Page, whereas in other ones, you need Authors + Title + Year + Publisher. So different needs, different styles.
Upvotes: 0 <issue_comment>username_2: The purpose of a citation style is to provide the reader with references in a standard and legible way. Using a certain style within a research field makes reading and skimming through citations within the field's publications more efficient.
Uniform citation style within a unit of certain field makes the unit's publications look uniform and adds to the quality of the publication, just as good grammar and otherwise good appearance does.
Arguably, a big fuss is when students are learning the correct ways of citation.
Upvotes: 3
|
2016/08/04
| 588
| 2,559
|
<issue_start>username_0: I'm an undergraduate student in Physics and Mathematics, who plans to do a PhD in Physics or Mathematics. I know when you are doing a PhD, you can be a TA or RA if it is provided, so that you can handle financial issues or you could be accepted into the PhD program with funding or scholarship (I don't remember the correct term) but what about loans or any other financial support for international PhD students in US and UK?
By the way, if it any helps, wherever I go for PhD, I will take their citizenship, at least apply, since I have no intention going back to Turkey.
A side question: Apart from the loans, what is the general procedure for financial offer from the universities? I mean how does it work?
Note: I'm from Turkey.<issue_comment>username_1: In the US, financial aid from the US government under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (student loans, Pell grants, and work study) is available only to US citizens and permanent residents (and a small number of other categories of people who have some permanent status in the US.) Generally, foreign graduate students aren't eligible for this kind of aid.
Typically, individual academic departments make decisions on who to admit and who to offer teaching/research assistantships. If a department decides to offer you admission with an assistantship, you'll typically receive an offer letter from the institution describing the aid in detail.
Upvotes: 2 <issue_comment>username_2: Well in Europe it depends a lot on the particular country. In general you have:
* TA positions funded by the department
* Research positions attached to a specific project. Usually, the professor managing the project decides who to get. Not much transparency here, if the professor likes you he gives you the position.
* Research positions funded externally by governmental bodies. For example, in Belgium it's FNRS and FRIA. In UK one example is EPSRC. These are usually very competitive and there might be some restrictions (EU citizen, etc.)
* Other funding from not for profit or charitable organizations. These need a lot of searching and depend on the country. In Belgium I know there are some to promote candidates from African countries, others for people coming from developing countries, single mothers, etc. But many countries have different procedures. Since these are not governmental, there is no central application system. You need to chase down each one separately.
If you add the country/ies you are interested in, you might get more specific answers.
Upvotes: 1
|